Skip to main content

Full text of "Announcements for the year"

See other formats




«*** 



New Series OCTOBER, 1907 Vol. IV, No. 9 



University of Oregon 



Bulletin ofthe 



Oregon High School Debating 
League 



EDGAR E. DcCOU 

Head of the Department of Mathematics 



mm 



Published monthly by the University of Oregon, and entered at the 
postoffice at Eugene, Oregon, as second-class matter. 



Oregon High School Debating 
League 



Announcements for the Year 1907- J 908 



Containing 

List of Officers, Constitution and By-Laws, Propo- 
sition for Debate, Bibliography, Debate 
Libraries, Notes 



Prepared by 

EDGAR E. DeCOU, 

Secretary-Treasurer of the League, 

Professor of Mathematics, 

University of Oregon 



OFFICERS 

For the year 1907-8 

E. T. MARLATTE, Salem. Principal Salem High School, 
President. 

E. E. DeCOU. Eugene, Professor of Mathematics, University 
of Oregon, Secretary-Treasurer. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

State Superintendent J. H. Ackerman, Salem. 
President P. L. Campbell, University of Oregon, Eugene. 
Miss Cornelia Marvin, Secretary State Library Commission, 
Salem. 

Superintendent J. S. Landers, Pendleton. 
County Superintendent Win. C. Bryant, Moro. 
Principal E. T. Marlatte, Salem. 
Professor E. E. DeCou, Eugene. 



R. R. Turner, Grants Pass, Superintendent of City Schools, 
Director, Southern Oregon District. 

Geo. W. Hug, Eugene, Principal Eugene High School, Director, 
Central Oregon District. 

J. A. Churchill, Baker City, Superintendent of City Schools, 
Director, Eastern Oregon District. 

I. N. Garman, Astoria, Principal of High School, Director, 
Columbia River District. 



Proposition for Debate 

AT THE 

INTER-DTSTRTCT CONTESTS and at the FINAL CONTEST 



PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 

Resolved: That members of the Legislature of the State 
of Oregon should be chosen by a system of proportional repre- 
sentation. 



This question was selected by the Executive Committee, be- 
cause it is generally understood that it will be brought before the 
people of Oregon next June, by means of the initiative for adoption 
as an amendment to the Constitution. This gives it a vital in- 
terest, not only for high school debate but also for careful con- 
sideration by every voter in the State. 

Copies of the proportional representative bill for Oregon 
may be secured from the State Library Commission, Salem. 

The appended bibliography was prepared by Miss Cornelia 
Marvin, Secretary of the Commission, who prefaces it with the 
following notes : 

"This bibliography is not complete but contains note of the 
most important and recent works generally accessible. Price is 
given for books which may be ordered through any dealer. Files 
of periodicals , and pamphlets may be obtained of the Library 
Commission at cost and are generally from five to fifteen cents 
each. In accordance with the wishes of the Executive Committee 
of the League, the Commission has collected several sets of 
pamphlets bearing upon the subject, and will sell these to the 
winning teams of the different districts. The Commission has 
one complete library which it will loan. The book of Ashworth 
is published in England and Australia and must be imported to 
order. Fuller bibliographies are noted below. Extracts from 
books not fully devoted to this subject will be copied at a nominal 
cost." 



Bibliography 



Proportional Representation — Bibliography U. S. Library of 
Congress. List of books, with references to periodicals, relating 
to proportional representation. 1904. Free to school libraries. 

American Proportional Representation League Address — 1899. 

Ashworth, T. R., and Ashworth, H. P. C. — Proportional rep- 
resentation applied to party government, 1901. Sounenschein, $1.68. 
Australian book which presents faults of the system. 

Bagehot, Walter — The English Constitution, and other political 
essays, p. 216 — Appleton, $2. Important material in opposition 
to system. Difficult for high school students. 

Berry, J.' M. — Constitutional convention of Connecticut, 1902. 
Published by the author. An appeal for change of constitution, 
with apx. containing Gove bill. 

Bliss, W. P. D. — Cyclopedia of social reform. New ed. 1907. 
Funk, $7.50. 

Commons, J. R. — Proportional representation, 2d ed. 1907. 
Macmillan, $1.25. Contains bibliography. Tjfre best general work. 

Direct Legislation Record— v. 5-10. 1898-1903. (6 nos.) 

Equity Series— (Quarterly) V. 8-9, 1906-7 (8 nos.) Equity 
Series, (1500 Chestnut St. Phil.) 50c per vol. . 

Forney, M. N. — Proportional representation, a means for the 
improvement of municipal government. 1900. E. W. Johnson, (2 
E. 42d St., N. Y.) 

Sum, Theodore — Effective Voting, 1899. Reprinted from the 
Adelaide Herald, 23 Sept. 

Llayncs, G. H. — Representation in State Legislatures. 1900. 
Amer. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Science, 75c. (Pub. No. 429.) 

Jenks, J. W. — Social basis of proportional representation. 1895. 
Amer. Acad, of Pol. & Social Science, 15c. (Pub. No. 159.) 

Lubbock Sir John and others — Proportional representation in 
England. (In 19th century. 17 p. 312.) 

Xicholls, Herbert — An election under the Clarke-Hare system. 
1899. The Mercury (Tasmania.) 

Oregon-Legislature — 1907. Senate joint resolution. No. 6. 1 
Feb. '07. Proposed amendment to Constitution. 

Pomeroy, Eltweed — Practical measures for preserving de- 
mocracy. (From Arena v. 31, p. 153-7, Feb., '04.) 

Primer of Direct Legislation. — 1906. p 11-17. Arena 10c. Re- 
printed from Arena June-July, '06. 

Proportional Representation Review — A quarterly magazine, 
v. 1-3, Sept., 1893— March 1896. (10 Nos.) 

4 



Proportional Representation Society (England) Report, 1906, 
On the growth of the movement at home and abroad. 

Referendum News — v. 1, No. 11, Sept. 1906. 

S pence, C. //.—How should we vote? 1899. Reprinted from 
South Australia Register, 23 Aug. 1899. 

Toronto District Labor Council — Official election ballot, 23 July, 
1903. Hare-Spence ballot. 

Tyson, Robert— Belgian system of proportional representation. 
1903. Reprinted from Arena, Feb., 1904. 

Tyson, Robert — Election wisdom of Japan, 1904. Reprinted 
from Arena, Sept., '04. 

Tyson, Robert — How proportional representation has worked 
in Belgium, 1904. Reprinted from Arena, Feb., 1904. 

Tyson, Robert — Proportional representation : Its principles, 
practice, and progress. No date. Reprinted from Pomeroy's by 
the people. 

Tyson, Robert — Proportional representation in Switzerland, 
1905. Reprinted from Arena, Oct., '05. 

Tyson, Robert — The single vote in plural elections, 1904. Re- 
printed from Arena, Oct., '04. 



Debate Libraries 



Debate libraries dealing with a large number of subjects of 
current interest may be obtained by any high school free of charge 
from the Oregon Library Commission, Salem, through its Sec- 
retary, Miss Cornelia Marvin. 

In making application the principal agrees to pay transporta- 
tion charges both ways. A library will be loaned for one month, 
and may be renewed if not in demand elsewhere. 

It is advisable to select subjects for several debates for the 
year and file a request with the Commission for the libraries wanted, 
in the order in which they are desired, and the dates upon which 
study will begin. Otherwise, the Commission cannot always fill 
requests, as certain libraries are very much in demand and the sup- 
ply is somewhat limited. Complete libraries need not be sent 
unless it is desired ; and the principal should state in his applica- 
tion the age and debating experience of the students who are to 
use the library and the amount of time to be given to the sub- 
ject. The libraries consist of books, chapters from books, periodi- 
cal articles, pamphlets, speeches, laws, etc. These libraries are 
well suited also to composition and essay work. The Commission 
also has a special list of study libraries for .composition essays 
and orations, which will be mailed on application. 

5 



Principals will be held responsible for return of all books in 
good condition, and will be, expected to replace lost or damaged 
books. 

The debate libraries now ready deal with the following sub- 
jects; namely: 

Direct primaries; initiative and referendum; popular elec- 
tion of senators ; woman suffrage ; immigration ; naturalization ; 
Chinese exclusion; industrial arbitration; eight-hour day; convict 
labor; open shop; trades unions; irrigation code; income tax; 
tariff; trusts; capital punishment; municipal ownership; free text 
books; consolidation of rural schools; road legislation; spelling 
reform ; ship subsidies ; government ownership of railroads. 

Published debates of other leagues will be loaned for use as 
models. 

A new list of debate libraries will be issued about January 1, 
1908, which will include several less difficult subjects. 

A few of the most valuable periodicals for material for de- 
bates are: 

The Independent, The Outlook, The Nation, Charities, Equity 
Series, National Civic Federation Review, and The Journal of 
Political Economy. 

Some very useful books are : 

Robert, H. M. — Rules of Order, Scott, Foresman & Co. 75c. 

Clark and Blanchard — Practical Public Speaking. Charles 
Scribner's Sons, $1.00. 

Alden— The Art of Debate. Henry Holt & Co. $1.00. 

Laycock & Scales — Argumentation and Debate. More advanc- 
ed work on debating. Good for trainer. The Macmilllan .Co. $1.10. 

Ringwalt — Briefs on Public Questions. The most recent and 
desirable books. Longmans, Green & Co. $1.20. 

A fuller list of aids is published by the Commission. For 
prices to schools see State school library list. 



Notes 



The list of high schools entering the League is omitted on 
account of incompleteness, due to the year book's being published 
earlier than was first planned. The lists may be secured from the 
districl directors soon. 

The directors will, so far as possible, arrange for contests 
between high schools of nearly equal strength; so that none of the 
smaller high schools should be dissuaded from entering the League 
on that account. 

Remember that the primary object is to strengthen the de- 

6 



bating in the home school, and that if you can participate in but 
one debate with an outside school you will wonderfully stimulate 
the work in the local debating societies. 

The State Library Commission is anxious to render you all 
possible assistance. Call upon it freely. 

The expenses of all debates can be met easily by charging a 
small fee. 

Stir up the whole community to interest in your outside de- 
bates, 



Constitution and By-Laws 

OF THE 

Oregon High School Debating League 

Adopted at the State Teachers' Association, Salem, July 2, 1907. 
ARTICLE I. 
Name. 
This organization shall be known as the Oregon High School 
Debating League. 

ARTICLE II. 
Object. 
The object of this league is improvement in debate among 
the students in the high schools of the State of Oregon. 
ARTICLE III. 
Membership 
Section 1. Any public high school in Oregon which maintains 
a debating society throughout the year may become a member 
of this league upon application to the executive committee of the 
league and shall retain such membership so long as it conforms 
to the constitution and by-laws. 

Section 2. All schools seeking admission for any particular 
year must join by November first of that year. 

Section 3. The annual dues of three dollars shall be paid to 
the Treasurer by November 1st. Failure to pay dues shall cancel 
membership. , 

ARTICLE IV. 
Officers, Committees, Duties. 
Section 1. The officers of the league shall be a President and 
a Secretary-Treasurer. They shall be elected at the annual meet- 
ing. 

Section 2. The executive committee of the league shall con- 
sist of the President and the Secretary who shall act with the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the President of the 

7 



University of Oregon, and the Secretary of the Oregon Library 
Commission. This committee shall have power to increase its 
membership by two additional members, one of whom shall be 
a county superintendent. 

Section 3. (a) It shall be the duty of the President to pre- 
side at the annual meeting, and at the final contest, and, when 
necessary, to call meetings of the executive committee. 

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary-Treasurer to keep 
minutes of the annual meeting, and of meetings of the executive 
committee, to disburse funds upon order of the executive com- 
mittee, to collect annual dues and perform other duties pertain- 
ing to the office. 

(c) It shall be the duty of the executive committee: 

To pair the district champion teams, and to make other 
arrangements for the inter-district contests, on the basis of con- 
venience and expense. 

To co-operate with the two directors, whose districts 
shall be represented in the final contest, in making arrangements 
for that contest. 

To select the question for debate for the inter-district 
and final contests. 

To prepare, and have printed, each year, before December 
1st, a year book containing the latest revision of the constitution 
and by-laws, the list of names and addresses of the officers, the 
list of names of the high schools belonging to the league, state- 
ment of question for inter-district and final contests with bibliog- 
raphy, and such other matter as, in their judgment, may be help- 
ful to the members of the league. 

Section 4. The executive committee shall appoint for each 
district one director who shall be the principal (or other repre- 
sentative) of one of the league high schools in that district. 
It shall be the duty of the director : 

To preside at the call meetings of the principals (or other rep- 
resentatives) of the league high schools in his district. 

To co-operate with the principals (or other representatives)' of 
the league high schools in his district, in pairing the schools, 
and in making other arrangements for the several series of 
district contests on the basis of convenience and expense. 

To furnish the executive committee all necessary information 
with regard to all the workings of the league within his district. 
ARTICLE V. 
Meetings, Elections. 
Section 1. The directors in the several districts shall at any 
time they deem it necessary, call meetings of the principals (or 
other representatives) of the league high schools in their respective 
districts. 

8 • 



Section 2. The annual meeting shall be held at the time of 
the State Teachers' Association. At this meeting the officers shall 
be elected, each for a period of one year. Each league high school 
shall be entitled to only one vote. 

ARTICLE VI. 
Debating Districts. 

The state shall be divided into debating districts by the execu- 
tive board of the league. 

ARTICLE VII. 
Contests. 

Section 1. District Contests. The district contests, held by 
teams representing the several high schools within each district, 
shall occur between the first of November and the first of February. 
The team winning in the last series of these contests shall be 
the district champion team. 

Section 2. Inter-District Contests. The inter-district con- 
tests, held by the several district champion teams, shall oc- 
cur between the first of March and the first of May. The two 
teams winning in these contests shall be the two inter-district 
champion teams. 

Section 3. Final Contest. The final contest, held by the two 
inter-district champion teams shall be held at the University of 
Oregon at a time to be fixed by the executive committee. 
ARTICLE VIII. 
Debaters. 

Section 1. The debaters shall be undergraduate students of 
the schools which they represent, and shall have passing grades 
to date in at least three subjects that they are taking at the time 
of the contest. 

Section 2. The team that shall represent any league high 
school shall be selected by that school in any manner agreed upon 
by the principal, teachers and students of that school. 

Section 3. At all contests the debaters shall be separated 
from the audience and shall receive no coaching while the debate 
is in progress. 

Section 4. At all contests the time and order of the speeches 
shall be as follows : 

First speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (introduction and direct 
argument.) 

First speaker, negative. 12 minutes (direct argument and re- 
futation.) 

Second speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and 
refutation.) 

Second speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and 
refutation.) 

9 



Third speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and 
refutation.) 

Third speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and re- 
futation.) 

First speaker, negative, (or one of his colleagues), 5 minutes, 
(rebuttal and summary.) 

First speaker, affirmative, (or one of his colleagues), 5 minutes, 
(rebuttal and summary.) 

No new argument allowed in either of the last two speeches. 
ARTICLE IX. 
Judges. 

Section 1. At each contest there shall be three judges who 
shall be selected on the basis of capability and impartiality. 

Section 2. At the district, and inter-district contests, the 
principals of the two schools represented in each contest shall 
select the judges; at the final contest, the executive committee shall 
select the judges. 

Section 3. Instructions : 

During the debate the judges shall sit apart from one another. 

They shall take into consideration both argument and delivery, 
and shall base their decision on the merits of the debate, not on 
the merits of the question. 

Each judge at the conclusion of the contest, without consulta- 
tion with and other judge, shall write on a carcithe word "affirma- 
tive" or "negative," seal it in an envelope, and deliver it to the 
presiding officer, who shall open the envelope in sight of the two 
leaders, and then announce to the audience the decision. 
ARTICLE X. 
Expenses. 

Section 1. At the district and inter-district contests, the 
entertaining high schools shall pay the expenses of the judges, 
and the hotel bills and railway mileage of the visiting teams (the 
three debaters and one member of the high school faculty.) If, 
however, the two teams taking part in the contest, should find it 
more convenient or less expensive to meet at some half-way point, 
the two schools which are represented by these teams shall share 
equally the expense, or make some special arrangements for de- 
fraying the expenses for that particular debate. 

Section 2. At the final contest the University shall pay the 
expenses of the judges and the hotel bills and traveling expenses 
of the two teams. 

ARTICLE XI. 
Amendments. 

This constitution and by-laws may be amended at any annual 
meeting by a majority of the league high schools present. But 
no school shall have more than one vote. Amendments may also 

10 



be made at any time by majority vote of the executive committee, 
subject to ratification at the next annual meeting. 

BY-LAWS 

1. After arrangements for any series of debates are con- 
cluded, the statement of the question for debate may be changed 
with the consent of the team concerned. But the team desiring 
the change must restate the question and secure the consent of 
the other teams. 

2. It shall be considered dishonorable for one school to visit 
the debates of another school when these two schools are likely to 
meet on the same question. 

3. It shall be considered dishonorable for any debater, in 
any manner, to plagiarize his speech. 

4. The question for district contests shall be selected by the 
principals of the league high schools of the district and shall not 
be the same as the inter-district question for the same year. 



J» 






New Series 



NOVEMBER, 1908 



Vol. 6, No. 2 



UNIVERSITY of OREGON 
BULLETIN 



Oregon High School Debating League 



EDGAR E. DeCOU 

Head of the Department of Mathematics 



^fcfcv 



Published Monthly by the University of Oregon, and entered at the 
postoffice at Eugene, Oregon, as second-class matter. 



. 




REGENTS' CUP 



This beautiful sterling silver cup is the grift of the Regrents of the 
University of Oregfon, as individuals, to the Leagrue, to stimulate debat- 
ing: among- the high schools of the State. It is presented annually to the 
winning team, and becomes the permanent property of the school win- 
ning it twice. 

Won by Lebanon. May 29. 1908. 



Oregon High School Debating 
League 



Announcements for the Year 1908-9 



Containing 



List of Officers, Constitution and By-Laws, 

Proposition for Debate, Bibliographies, 

Debate Libraries, and Notes 



Prepared 03- 

EDGAR E. DeCOU 

Secretary-Treasurer of the League 

Professor of Mathematics 

University of Oregon 



OFFICERS 
For the year 1907-8. 

E. T. MARLATTE, Salem, Principal Salem High School, presi- 
dent. 

E. E DeCOU, Eugene, Professor of Mathmetics, University 
of Oregon, Secretary-Treasurer. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

State Superintendent J. H. Ackerman, Salem. 
President P. L. Campbell, University of Oregon, Eugene. 
Miss Cornelia Marvin, Secretary State Library Commission, 
Salem. 

Superintendent J. S. Landers, Pendleton. 
County Superintendent Wm. C. Bryant, Moro. 
Principal E. T. Marlatte, Salem. 
Professor E. E. DeCou, Eugene. 



R. R. Turner, Grants Pass, Superintendent of City Schools, Di- 
rector, Southern Oregon District. 

Geo. W. Hug, Eugene, Principal Eugene High School, Director, 
Central Oregon District. 

J. A. Churchill, Baker City, Superintendent of City Schools, 
Director, Eastern Oregon District. 

W. W. Wiley, Newberg, Superintendent City Schools, Director, 
Columbia River District. 

A. G. Raab, North Bend, Superintendent of City Schools, Di- 
rector Coos Bay District. 



List of High Schools in Debating League, 1908-9. 

Albany: Supt. A. M. Sanders, Prin. Grace Campbell. 

Astoria: Supt. A. L. Clark, Prin. John G. Imel. 

Baker City: Supt. J. A. Churchill, Prin. Helen M. Stack. 

Bandon: Supt. H. C. Ostien. 

Brownsville: Prin. W. S. Smith. 

Central Point: Prin. F. P. Cooper. 

Coquille: Supt. H. O. Anderson. 

Cottage Grove: Supt. E. K. Barnes, Prin. Mary Mundy. 

Crook County: Prin. M. B. Hockenberry. 

The Dalles: Supt. A. C. Strange, Prin. W. B. Young. 

Elgin: Supt. E. G. Bailey, 

Eugene: Supt. Guy C. Stockton, Prin. Geo. W. Hug. 

Grants Pass: Supt. R. R. Turner, Prin. H. E. Mielke. 

Gresham: Prin. C. C. Baker. 

Hood River: Supt. E. E. Coad, Prin. L. B. Gibson. 

Jefferson: Supt. W. H. Martin, Prin. Alma Johnson. 

Junction City: Prin. A. K. Mickey. 

Klamath Palls: Prin. J. T. Butcher. 

La Grande: Supt. H. J. Hockenberry. 

Lebanon: Supt. F. M. Statler, Prin. Miss Johnson. 

Marshfield: Supt. F. A. Golden. 

Myrtle Point: Supt. R. E. Baker. 

Newberg: Supt. W W. Wiley, Prin. J. G. Mcintosh. 

North Bend: Supt. A. G. Raab. 

Ontario: Supt. E. B. Conklin. 

Pendleton: Supt. J. S. Landers, Prin. A. C. Hampton. 

Roseburg: Supt. L. L. Baker, Prin. J. W. Groves. 

Salem: Supt. J. M. Powers, Prin. E. T. Marlatte. 

Sherman County: Supt. W. C. Bryant, 

Prin. J. M. Woods, Wasco. 

Prin. John Blough, Moro. 

Prin. H. H. White, Grass Valley. 

Prin. W. L. Wymberly, Ken. 
Silverton: Prin. W. L. Ray. 
Tillamook: Prin. James Goldsworthy. 
Union: Supt. John F. Frost, Prin. G. W. DeLay. 
Woodburn: Supt. Albert Frost, Prin. B. K. Cook. 
Yamhill: Prin. W. A. Wiest. 



This list is not quite complete, owing to delay on the part of 
some, schools in making application prior to the time of going 

to press. 



List of Schools by Districts 

Eastern Oregon : Baker City, Crook County, Elgin, La 
Grande, Ontario, Pendleton, Sherman County, Union. 

Columbia River: Astoria, The Dalles, Gresham, Hood 
River, Newberg, Tillamook, Woodburn, Yamhill. 

Central Oregon : Albany, Brownsville, Cottage Grove, 
Eugene, Jefferson, Junction City, Lebanon, Salem, Silverton. 

Southern Oregon : Central Point, Grants Pass, Klamath 
County, Roseburg. 

Coos Bay: Bandon, Coquille, Marshfield, Myrtle Point, 
North Bend. 



fl^^H ^ si • ^ ^J 



ET.SIE LTLLARD 



PEARL ALDRICH 

LEBANON DEBATING TEAM 



ANNIE MCCORMICK 



Winners of the championship of the Central Oregon District of the 
inter-district debate with Grants Pass, and the State championship from 
Astoria, at Villard Hall, University of Oregon, May 29, 1908. 




JENNIE JEFFERS 



CARL THOMAS 

ASTORIA DEBATING TEAM 



HI ROTE WISE 



Champions of the Columbia River District and winners of the inter- 
district debate with Baker City. 



PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE 

AT THE 

Inter-District Contests and at the Final Contest 

SHIP SUBSIDIES 

Resolved: That the United States should maintain a 
system of bounties and subsidies for the protection of the 
American merchant marine. 



The State question for 1908-9 deals with one of the live na- 
tional issues; the principle involved is easily understood and the 
material for its study is abundant. Appended is a selection of a 
few of the most desirable books prepared by Miss Cornelia Mar- 
vin, secretary of the State Library Commission, Salem. The 
Commission will supply additional references later when called 
for; both on the State subject and also on those for the dis- 
tricts. 

SHIP SUBSIDIES 

Bibliographies and Briefs. 

U. S.— Library of Congress. List of books on mercantile marine sub- 
sidies. 1906. 
Ringwalt. Briefs on public questions. 1905. 
Brookings & Ringwalt. Briefs for debate. 1895. 

Books and Public Documents. 

Dunmore. Ship subsidies. 1907. Houghton. $1.00. 

Meeker. History of shipping subsidies. 1905. American Economic 

Association. $1.00. 
U. S. — Merchant Marine Commission. Report. 1905. 3v. and sup- 
plement. 
Congressional Record. (Consult index to volumes for 60th congress, 
1st session, for debates on Humphrey bill (H. R. 4068); and see 
also volumes for preceding congresses. ) 
U. S. — Bureau of Navigation. Annual reports. 

See also reports of Department of Commerce and Labor, espec- 
ially the 1907 report. 
Pierce. American and English shipping (in his Tariff and the trusts. 

1907. p. 89-116. Macmillan. $1.50.) 
Johnson. Ocean and inland water transportation. 1906. Apple- 
ton. $1.50. 

The many periodical articles, congressional reports, extracts from 
president's messages, etc., are listed in the bibliography noted above. 
Recent articles may be found through the Reader's Guide to Periodi- 
cal Literature or the Eclectic Library Catalog, one of which should be 
in every school. The commission will send addresses of associations 
which issue literature on the subject. Editorials from the Oregonian 
should be collected, and dates of these will be sent upon application. 



PROPOSITIONS FOR DISTRICT DEBATES 

To be used in all bul the first preliminaries. 

CENTRAL OREGON DISTRICT. 

Resolved, That the consolidated county system of public schools 
(with elective county school board, with power to appoint county 
superintendent) should be adopted in Oregon in lieu of the present 
system of rural school districts. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

National Educational Association. Report of committee of twelve on 
rural schools. Irwin Shepard, Secretary, Winona, Minn. 25 cents. 

Illinois Educational Commission. Bulletins 2, 4. (Apply to the Ore- 
gon Library Commission. These pamphlets are not for sale. ) 

Report of State Superintendent, Utah, 1907. 

Oregon County Superintendents' Convention, 1908. Resolutions. 
(Apply to State Superintendent.) 

N. Y. State Association of School Commissioners. Proceedings. 1907. 
State Library, Albany, N. Y. 15 cents. 

COLUMBIA RIVER DISTRICT. 

Resolved, That the school funds should be apportioned on the basis 
of the number of teachers employed, rather than on that of the school 
census. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Cubberley. School funds. Teachers' College, Columbia University, 

N. Y. $2.00. 
National Educational Association. Report of committee of twelve on 

rural schools. Irwin Shepard, Secretary, Winona, Minn. 25 cents. 
Oregon County Superintendents' Convention. Proceedings. 1908. 

EASTERN OREGON DISTRICT. 

Resolved, That the State of Oregon should provide by general tax- 
ation for a minimum term of six months in each school district of the 
State. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

National Educational Association. Report of committee of twelve on 
rural schools. Irwin Shepard, Secretary, Winona, Minn. 25 cents. 

Taxation as related to public education. Apply to secre- 
tary. 10 cents. 

Cubberley. School funds. Teachers' College, Columbia University, 
New York. $2.00. 

Oregon. County superintendents' convention, 1908. Resolutions. 

Report of State Superintendent, Montana, 1905-6. 

Report of State Superintendent, Ohio, 1907. 

SOUTHERN OREGON DISTRICT. 

Resolved, That free text-books should be provided in the public 
schools below the high school grade. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

U. S. Bureau of Education. Report. 1903-4. v. 2, p. 2279. 
Report. 1897-98. v. 1, pp. 902-8. 

Report. 1893-94. v. 2. 

Andrews. Free text-books (in Cosmopolitan, v. 32, pp. 329-33. Jan. 

1902). 
Hughson. Free text-books (in Oregon Teachers' Monthly. Jan. 1907). 



Ackerman. Free text-books — pro and con. (in school board journal. 

Nov. 1905). 
Michigan. State Sup't. Text-book legislation : facts and figures. 1898. 
Jenks. School-book legislation (in his citizenship and the schools. 

' 1906). pp. 207-64. 
Oregon Legislature. 1907. House Bill No. 50. 
Reportof State Superintendent. Maryland. 1906-7. 
Report of State Superintendent. Nebraska. 1905-6. 
Report of State Superintendent. California. 1905-6. 

DEBATE LIBRARIES 

The debate libraries which proved so helpful last year have 
been greatly increased in number and efficiency. Every high 
school in the State should send at once to the Oregon Library 
Commission, Salem, — Miss Cornelia Marvin, secretary — for School 
Circulars, Nos. 5 and 6, dealing with debate libraries. These cir- 
culars explain the purpose of the libraries, their use, and how to 
obtain them — free except for transportation charges. They give 
a list of books for debating societes, also 117 subjects for de- 
bate, in addition to the State and district questions. The Com- 
mission will gladly give full information about material desired 
for debates. 

Note that the district debate subjects are available for the 
first preliminary debates in all but the district named. 

NOTES. 

The district directors will, so far as possible, arrange for 
contests between high schools of nearly equal strength in 
order that the smaller schools may not be placed at a marked 
disadvantage. 

Remember that the primary object is to strengthen the de- 
bating in the home school, and that if you can participate in 
but one debate with an outside school you will wonderfully 
stimulate the work in the local debating societies. 

You can meet all the expenses of the debates by charging a 
•small fee. Make the program bright and interesting by secur- 
ing the best music in town. A banquet to the visiting team 
wonderfully promotes good fellowship. / 

Advertise all the time. Keep the locai papers fully posted 
about your work and secure extended reports of your public 
debates. 

If your team wins, encourage them and strengthen home 
pride by inserting cuts of the winners in both the local and 
Portland papers. 

Report promptly all arrangements for debates and the deci- 
sions to the district director. 

If you should be defeated in the preliminaries, arrange addi- 
tional debates outside the League schedule Some of the largest . 
schools in the State held last year what they called "consolation 
debates." 

Secure School Circulars Nos. 5 and 6 from the State Library 
Commission, Salem; they are full of useful information. 

Hold your "try-outs" for members of your debating team 
early, preferably in October. Local subjects or others on which 
the material needed is right at hand, are best for the purpose. 

The Coos Bay District has been organized to meet the needs 
of the Coos County schools. 




WILLI AN HERNSKX FRANK NcCl'I.LOCH ROY BARTON 

BAKER CITY DEBATING TEAM 

Champions of the Eastern Oregon District. 




BRROI, GII.KKY OLWEN HUGHES HERBERT GILKEY 

GRANTS PASS DEBATING TEAM 
Champions of the Southern Oregon District. 



FUNCTIONS OF A DEBATE COACH 

President K. T. MARLATTE 

We grow wise by our own and others' experiences. It has 
been said that by others' faults wise men correct their own. 
That there were faults — both minor and serious — in the man- 
ner in which debating teams were put into the field last year 
must be evident to all who gave the matter of our State Debat- 
ing League any serious consideration. The principal weakness 
of our organization last year was the lack of uniformity in 
the preparation of debates for the contests with different schools. 
That there might in the future be more uniformity along this 
line I have been asked to write, what, in my judgment, are the 
legitimate functions of a debate coach. 

A coach for debate is just as necessary as a coach for 
baseball, football, or any other high school enterprise and all 
schools are urged to secure the most efficient person possible 
for this work. Now just what may a coach do? 

First — Give systematic instruction in the art of debate as 
outlined in any of the standard texts on the subject. For this 
work I would like to recommend any of the following authors: 
Alden, Laycock and Scales, Laycock and Spofford, and Ringwalt 
for briefs on public questions. 

Second — Hold a number of short debates on easy subjects, a 
long list of which has been furnished by the State Library Com- 
mission. In this way the best debaters in the school may be 
chosen strictly on their merits as debaters. Have two teams, 
a first and second; it will greatly stimulate the interest in the 
work. 

Third — Show the student how to select references that are 
of value. Many authorities that are cited are worthless; help 
the student to discriminate. After all the material is gathered 
help the student to arrange the brief. 

Fourth — Go on a vacation and stay until after the debate. 

I wish a sentiment might be created among the high schools 
of the State that would make dishonest practices on the part 
of over-ambitious principals and teachers impossible. I refer 
to the matter of principals and teachers actually writing the 
entire speeches of their debating team. This idea of winning 
at any cost is sure to result in winning, if perchance you do 
win, at much too great a cost. This State League does not 
offer any encouragement to simply declamatory effort but only 
to honest work in the art of debate. Let all school men and 
women of the State who have the best interests of the young- 
men and women at heart get under the load and boost for 
more systematic instruction in the art of debate, and more 
honesty in the final preparation of debates between schools: 
If we older folk must debate, that can be easily arranged as 
a side issue. I expect that this year will see a great growth in 
our State Debating League. 



CREDIT FOR WORK IN DEBATE 

President K. T. MARLATTE 

I am not of the opinion that some material incentive should 
be held out to students to induce them to take part in every 
enterprise, but it does seem to me that the ability to think on 
one's feet, and to speak clearly, forcefully and convincingly what 
one thinks, is of such great educational value that some scholas- 
tic recognition should be given to honest, serious and faithful 
work done in debating in our high, schools. Usually in a four- 
year high school one year is given over to the study of Compo- 
sition and Rhetoric from a text. In this text a chapter or part 
of a chapter is taken up with the matter of argumentation. 
That, of course, is better than nothing, and can be made very 
profitable if the teacher of English will supplement the work 
of the text with a good book on the Art of Debate, such as the 
one by Alden. 

It requires much time and study to prepare a creditable 
debate and to me it seems only fair that some credit toward 
graduation should be given for such work. Of course only in 
the case of high schools that maintain at least one active debating 
society throughout the school year would one be justified in 
allowing an English credit for the student who made the team, 
ordinarily a candidate for a team has to do two years of debat- 
ing before he makes a place on the team so the credit really is 
for two years' work in debate. 

This is what I would suggest: To tne members of the first 
team who have taken part in one debate with some other school 
in the League a credit be given for that term of English; and 
to members of the second team who have twice contested with 
any high school, Credit for one term of their English work, 
whicn term to be determined by the instructor in English. But 
in no case should credit be given any student in debate unless 
an active debating society be conducted throughout the school 
year. 



REVIEW OF THE FIRST YEAR'S WORK OF 
THE LEAGUE 

E. E. DECOU, Secretary-Treasurer 

The Oregon High School Debating League was organied one 
year ago at the meeting of tne State Teachers' Association at 
Salem. After the adoption of a constitution, Principal E. T. 
Marlatte was elected president, and Professor E. E. De Cou 
secretary-treasurer for the ensuing year. These officers, together 
with State Superintendent J. H. Ackerman, President P. L. 
Campbell, of the University of Oregon and Miss Cornelia Marvin, 
secretary of the State Library Commission, selected Superin- 
tendent J. S. Landers and County Superintendent Wm. C. Bryant 
to complete the executive committee for the year. The com- 
mittee selected Proportional Representation as the subject for 
the inter-district and final debates. 

10 



In September following, the secretary sent out circular letters 
to every high school in the State explaining the organization and 
purpose of the League and urging them to enter. The response 
was unexpectedly large and enthusiastic. Quite a number of 
schools expressed strong interest but could not enter imme- 
diately; twenty-eight schools sent in their fees and enrolled 
in the League. The executive committee at once divided the 
State into four debating districts and selected district directors 
as follows: Southern Oregon District, Superintendent R. R. 
Turner, Grants Pass, director — Grants Pass, Roseburg, Medford, 
Klamath Falls, Marshfield, and North Bend. Central Oregon 
District, Principal Geo W. Hug, Eugene, director — Eugene, Sa- 
lem, Albany, Brownsville, Lebanon, Silverton, Junction City, 
and Harrisburg. Columbia River District, Principal I. N. Gar- 
man, Astoria, director — Astoria, Tillamook, Clatskanie, Gresham, 
Parkplace, and Amity. Eastern Oregon District, Superintendent 
J. A. Churchill, Baker City, director — Baker City, Union, La 
Grande, Ontario, The Dalles, Hood River, Pendleton, and the 
Wallowa County high school. 

In October the secretary prepared a bulletin containing the 
constitution and by-laws, list of officers, proposition for debate, 
and other information, which was printed by the University 
and mailed to all the high schools. 

The schools were promptly paired by the district directors and 
the debates began in December. The pairing and decisions were 
as follows, the first-named school in each case being the winner: 
Southern Oregon District first preliminaries, Grants Pass vs. 
Roseburg, Klamath Falls vs. Medford, Marshfield vs. North 
Bend; second preliminary, Grants Pass vs. Klamath Falls; final 
district debate, Grants Pass vs. Marshfield, held at Roseburg 
February 15; Grants Pass won the championship, supporting 
the negative of the question, "Resolved, That the naturalization 
laws of the United States should be made more stringent." 

Central Oregon District, first preliminaries, Albany vs. Salem, 
Lebanon vs. Eugene, Brownsville vs. Silverton, Junction City vs. 
Harrisburg; second preliminaries, Lebanon vs. Junction City, 
Brownsville vs. Albany; final district debate, Lebanon vs. Browns- 
ville, at Brownsville, February 14; Lebanon won the district 
championship, supporting the negative of the question, "Re- 
solved, That Oregon should enact a law providing for State finan- 
cial aid for public highways." 

Columbia River District, first preliminaries, Astoria vs. Tilla- 
mook, Gresham vs. Parkplace, Clatskanie vs. Amity; second 
preliminary, Clatskanie vs. Gresham; district championship won 
by Astoria in debate with Clatskanie at Astoria April 2 4, sup- 
porting the affirmative of the question, "Resolved, That* munici- 
palities should own and operate their lighting and transportation 
facilities." 

Eastern Oregon District, i„rst preliminaries, Baker City vs. 
Ontario, Union vs. La Grande, The Dalles vs. Hood River, Wal- 
lowa County high school vs. Pendleton; second preliminaries, 
Baker City vs. Union, The Dalles vs. Wallowa County high 
school; district championship won by Baker City from The 
Dalles at The Dalles, March 2 0, supporting the affirmative of 
the question, "Resolved, That the government should own and 
operate the railroads. "- 

11 



In the inter-district debates on Proportional Representaton, 
Astoria won from Baker City at Astoria, April 2 4, on the affirma- 
tive, and Lebanon won from Grants Pass at Lebanon, April 17, 
on the negative. 

The final debate for the championship of the State was held 
at Villard Hall, University of Oregon, May 29, State Superin- 
tendent Ackerman presiding. The debate, between Lebanon 
and Astoria, was excellent throughout > and very closely con- 
tested, every speaker receiving hearty applause. The decision 
was two to one in favor of the negative, supported by Lebanon. 
On behalf of the Regents of the University, as individuals, Hon. 
S. H. Friendly presented to the winner the beautiful sterling 
silver "Regents' Cup," on which was engraved the inscription: 
"Oregon High School Debating League, Regents' Cup. Pre- 
sented annually by the Regents of the University of Oregon to 
the winning team. To be held permanently when won in two 
contests." After the debate the teams, judges, officers, and 
other especially interested, repaired to a banquet presided over 
by the secretary, in the -necessary absence of President Marlatte, 
concluding most happily the successful work of the first year 
of the ^eague. 

The testimony of the high school principals and of the press 
is the best evidence of the value of the work done. The prin- 
cipals speak of the enthusiasm aroused in their schools, the in- 
teresting of formerly indifferent boys, and the students gen- 
erally, in live public questions, of the uniting of the school as 
a unit for the team, and the teachers in closer sympathy with 
the pupils; they speak of the strong interest aroused in the 
community by the discussion of live questions of the day and 
the resulting stronger support of the high schools. The view of 
the press is best expressed by an able and strongly commendatory 
editorial in the Oregonian of June 2, 1908, in which they speak 
of the great personal benefit to the hundred or more debaters 
engaged, the value to the school and the community of the 
careful study and presentation of vital issues. In general, they 
regard it as an educational institution of great value, develop- 
ing power in public speaking, interest in public questions, and 
diffusion of knowledge concerning them. 

On the other hand, there are some questons that should be 
considered and settled on the basis of experience, in order that 
the work of the League may become increasingly valuable. A 
few of these are: The selection of judges, the basis for judging 
debates, continuance of interest in debate throughout the year, 
the amount of time to give to debate, the amount of assistance 
desirable for the debaters, the question of school credits for 
work done, the selection of questions, the securing of material, 
and others. 

In closing, the secretary desires to express his warm appre- 
ciation of the hearty co-operation of the other members of the 
executive committee and the enthusiastic support of the prin- 
cipals, which has made an otherwise arduous task most pleas- 
urable. 

Report of Treasurer 1907-8. 

Fees received, 2 8 schools at $3.00 each $84.00 

Expenditures, stationery, stamps, etc 32.80 

Balance on hand, June 27, 1908 $51 . 80 

12 



CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS 



Oregon High School Debating League 

(Adopted at the State Teachers' Association, Salem, July 2, 1907. Amended 

June 27, 1908.) 

ARTICLE I. 

NAME. 

This organization shall be known as the Oregon High School 
Debating League. 

ARTICLE II. 

OBJECT. 

The object of this league is improvement in debate among the 
students in the high schools of the State of Oregon. 

ARTICLE III. 

MEMBERSHIP. 

Section 1. Any public high school in Oregon which maintains a 
debating society throughout the year may become a member of this 
league upon application to the executive committee of the league and 
shall retain such membership so long as it conforms to the constitu- 
tion and by-laws. 

Section 2. All schools seeking admission for any particular year 
must join by October 15th of that year. 

Section 3. The annual dues of three dollars shall be paid to the 
Treasurer by October 15th. Failure to pay dues shall cancel member- 
ship. 

ARTICLE IV. 

OFFICERS, COMMITTEES, DUTIES. 

Section 1. The officers of the league shall be a President and a 
Secretary-Treasurer. They shall be elected at the annual meeting. 

Section 2. The executive committee of the league shall consist of 
the President and the Secretary, who shall act with the State Superin- 
tendent of Public Instruction, the President of the University of 
Oregon and the Secretary of the Oregon Library Commission. This 
committee shall have power to increase its membership by two addi- 
tional members, one of whom shall be a county superintendent. 

Section 3. (a) It shall be the duty of the President to preside at 
the annual meeting, and at the final contest, and, when necessary, to 
call meetings of the executive committee. 

(6) It shall be the duty of the Secretary-Treasurer to keep minutes 
of the annual meeting, and of meetings of the executive committee, to 
disburse funds upon order of the executive committee, to collect an- 
nual dues and perform other duties pertaining to the office. 

13 



(c) It shall be the duty of the executive committee : 

To pair the district champion teams, and to make other arrange- 
ments for the inter-district contests, on the basis of convenience and 
expense. 

To co-operate with the two directors, whose districts shall be 
represented in the final contest, in making arrangements for that 
contest. 

To select the question for debate for the inter-district and final 
contest ; also those for the districts in all but the first preliminaries. 

To prepare, and have printed, each year, before December 1st, 
a year book containing the latest revision of the constitution and by- 
laws, the list of names and addresses of the officers, the list of names 
of the high schools belonging to the league, statement of question for 
inter-district and final contests with bibliography, and such other 
matter as, in their judgment, may be helpful to the members of the 
league. 

Section 4. The executive committee shall appoint for each district 
one director who shall be the principal (or other representative) of 
one of the league high schools in that district. 

It shall be the duty of the director : 

To preside at the call meetings of the principals (or other represen- 
tatives) of the league high schools in his distrct. 

To co-operate with the principals (or other representatives) of the 
league high schools in his district, in pairing the schools, and in mak- 
ing other arrangements for the several series of district contests on 
the basis of convenience and expense. 

To furnish the executive committee all necessary information with 
regard to all the workings of the league within his district. 

ARTICLE V. 

MEETINGS, ELECTIONS. 

Section 1. The directors in the several districts shall, at any time 
they deem it necessary, call meetings of the principals (or other rep- 
resentatives) of the league high schools in their respective districts. 

Section 2. The annual meeting shall be held at the time of the 
State Teachers' Association. At this meeting the officers shall be 
elected, each for a period of one year. Each league high school shall 
be entitled to only one vote. 

ARTICLE VI. 

DEBATING DISTRICTS. 

The state shall be divided into debating districts by the executive 
board of the league. 

ARTICLE VII. 

CONTESTS. 

Section 1. District Contests. The district contests, held by teams 
representing the several high schools within each district, shall occur 

14 



between the first of November and the first of February. The team 
winning in the last series of these contests shall be the district champ- 
ion team. 

Section 2. Inter-District Contests. The inter-district contests, 
held by the several district champion teams, shall occur between the 
first of March and the first of May. The two teams winning in these 
contests shall be the two inter-district champion teams. 

Section 3. Final Contest. The final contest, held by the two inter- 
district champion teams, shall be held at the University of Oregon at 
a time to be fixed by the executive committee. 

ARTICLE VIII. 

DEBATERS. 

Section 1. The debaters shall be undergraduate students of the 
schools which they represent, and shall have passing grades to date in 
at least three subjects that they are taking at the time of the contest. 

Section 2. The team that shall represent any league high school 
shall be selected by a series of try-outs. 

Section 3. At all contests the debaters shall be separated from 
the audience and shall receive no coaching while the debate is in 
progress.. 

Section 4. At all contests the time and order of the speeches shall 
be as follows: 

First speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (introduction and direct argu- 
ment.) 

First speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refuta- 
tion.) 

Second speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refu- 
tation. 

Second speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refuta- 
tion. ) 

Third speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refu- 
tation. ) 

Third speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refuta- 
tion. ) 

Closer, negative, 6 minutes (rebuttal and summary.) 

Closer, affirmative, 6 minutes (rebuttal and summary.) 

No new argument allowed in either of the last two speeches. 

ARTICLE IX. 

Section 1. At each contest there shall be three judges selected on 
the basis of capability and impartiality; and, so far as possible, they 
shall be non-local. 

Section 2. The judges for inter-district debates shall be appointed 
by the executive committee. For the district contests, the principals 
of the two schools represented shall select the judges as follows: The 
principal of the visiting school shall submit a list of nine judges to the 
home school, from which to select three. If less than this number are 

15 



satisfactory, the principal of the home school shall present a like list 
for selection, and so on until three mutually satisfactory judges are 
selected. The consideration of judges shall be taken up a month or 
more before the contest, and if possible, the final selection shall be 
made not less than a week before the debate. 

Section 3. During the debate the judges shall sit apart from one 
another. They shall take into consideration argument, rebuttal, and 
effectiveness, and shall base their decision on the merits of the debate 
and not on that of the question. Each judge at the conclusion of the 
contest, without consultation with any other judge, shall write on a 
card the word "affirmative" or "negative," seal it in an envelope, 
and deliver it to the presiding officer, who shall open the envelopes in 
the sight of the two leaders, and then announce to the audience the 
decision. 

The following score card is to be handed each judge for his private 
use. 

[FACE.] 

SCORE CARD FOR OREGON STATE DEBATING LEAGUE. 



Affirmative. 


Argument. 


Rebuttal. Effectiveness. 


Tqjal. 


First Speaker. . 
















Third Speaker 








Total 

















Negative. 


Argument. 


Rebuttal. 


Effectiveness. 


Total. 


First Speaker. 










Second Speaker 










Third Speaker 










Total .. 





















N. B.— Not more than 100 points and not less than 60 points shall be given 
for each of the three divisions: Argument, Rebuttal, and Effectiveness. 

[BACK.] 

INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES. 
I. The judges shall sit apart from one another, and shall at the conclusion 
of the debate, without consultation, write on a separate card the word 
''affirmative' 1 or ''negative, M seal in envelope and hand to the presid- 
ing officer. 

II. Each debater shall be marked under the three heads as indicated at the 

bottom of the face of score card. The leader of the affirmative shall 
give the final rebuttal speech, at which time he will be given credit 
for rebuttal. 

III. Definition of terms: 

ARGUMENT means the substance and value of the proof ottered audits 

skillful use in the discussion. 
REBUTTAL means impromptu argument used to refute the direct argu- 
ment of the opposing side. 
EFFECTIVENESS means the combination of good English with pleasing 
delivery. 
[V. Decision should be based on the merits of the debate and not on the 
merits of the question. 



10 



ARTICLE X. 

EXPENSES. 

Section 1. At the district and inter-district contests, the entertain- 
ing high schools shall pay the expenses of the judges, and the hotel 
bills and railway mileage of the visiting teams (the three debaters and 
one member of the high school faculty). If, however, the two teams 
taking part in the contest, should find it more convenient or less ex- 
pensive to meet at some half-way point, the two schools which are 
represented by these teams shall share equally the expense, or make 
some special arrangements for defraying the expenses for that par- 
ticular debate. 

Section 2. At the final contest the University shall pay the ex- 
penses of the judges and the hotel bills and traveling expenses of the 
two teams. 

ARTICLE XL 

AMENDMENTS. 

This constitution and by-laws may be amended at any annual meet- 
ing by a majority of the league high schools present. But no school 
shall have more than one vote. Amendments may also be made at any 
time by majority vote of the executive committee, subject to ratifica- 
tion at the next annual meeting. 

BY-LAWS. 

1. After arrangements for any series of debates are concluded, 
the statement of the question for debate may be changed with the 
consent of the team concerned. But the team desiring the change 
must restate the question and secure the consent of the other teams. 

2. It shall be considered dishonorable for one school to visit the 
debates of another school when these two schools are likely to meet 
on the same question. 

3. It shall be considered dishonorable for any debater, in any 
manner, to plagiarize his speech. 

4. The questions for the first preliminary debates shall be selected 
by. the principals of the contesting schools; but they shall be different 
from the question used in the remaining debate in that district and 
that used in the inter-district contests. 

5. Counties with less than seventy-five high school students 
registered in all the schools in the county may enter the league with 
a team selected by a series of try-outs from all the high schools of 
the county. 

6. The "Regents' Cup" shall become the permanent property of 
the school winning it twice. A "League Cup" shall be given to the 
school failing to hold the "Regents' Cup" a second year, said "League 
Cup" to be held permanently by the school. 



17 



Vv v V New Series OCTOBER, 1909 Vol. VII, No. 2 

a- 



W-o' 



UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 
BULLETIN 



Oregon High School Debating League 



EDGAR E. DeCOU ffeftY 

Head of the Department of Mathematics 



Qt IVV™^ 1, 




Published Monthly by the University of Oregon, and entered at the post- 
office at Eugene, Oregon, as second-class matter. 






ttWtW™ 1 



Of \iu»o« 




REGENTS' CUP 

This beautiful sterling silver cup is the gift of the Regents of the University 
Of Oregon, as individuals, to the League, to stimulate debating among the 
high schools of the State. It is presented annually to the winning team, and 
becomes the permanent property of the school winning it twice. 

Won by Lebanon, May 29, 1908. 

Won by Grants Pass, June 4, 1909. 



OREGON 
HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING LEAGUE 



ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR THE YEAR 1909-10 



THE LIBRARY OF TUf 

List of Officers, ConstituQMiI - 1921 
and By - Laws, Propositions 
for Debate, Bibliographies^ OF ILLINOIS 
Debate Libraries, and Notes 



PREPARED BY 



EDGAR E. DeCOU 

Secretary-Treasurer of the League 

Professor of Mathematics 
University of Oregon 



OREGON HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING LEAGUE. 

OFFICERS 

For the year 1909-10. 

A. M. Sanders, Superintendent of Schools, Albany, President. 

E. E. DeCou, Eugene, Professor of Mathematics, University of 
Oregon, Secretary-Treasurer. 

Executive Committee 

J. H. Ackerman, State Superintendent, Salem. 

P. L. Campbell, President University of Oregon, Eugene. 

Cornelia Marvin, Secretary State Library Commission, Salem. 

E. B. Conklin, Superintendent, Ontario. 

Wm. C Bryant, County Superintendent, Moro. 

A. M. Sanders, Superintendent, Albany. 

Prof. E. E. DeCou, Eugene. 



R. R. Turner, Grants Pass, Superintendent of City Schools, Director, 
Southern Oregon District. 

J. S. Landers, Pendleton, Superintendent of City Schools, Director, 
Eastern Oregon District. 

A. K. Mickey, Junction City, Superintendent of City Schools, 

Director, Central Oregon District. 
W. W. Wiley, Newberg, Superintendent of City Schools, Director, 

Columbia River District. 
A. G. Raab, North Bend, Superintendent of City Schools, Director, 

Coos Bay District. 



HIGH SCHOOLS IN DEBATING LEAGUE, 1909-10. 

Albany Supt. A. M. Sanders. 

Athena Supt. H. G. Case. 

Astoria Supt. John G. Imel, Prin. H. H. Hoffman. 

Baker City Supt. J. A. Churchill, Prin. Helen M. Stack. 

Coquille Supt. H. 0. Anderson. 

Cottage Grove Supt. E. K. Barnes. 

Cove Supt. Roy Conklin. 

Crook County, Prineville Prin. M. B. Hockenberry. 

The Dalles Supt. A. C. Strange, Prin. W. B. Young. 

Elgin Supt. E. G. Bailey. 

Enterprise Prin. H. K. Shirk. 

Eugene Supt. Guy C. Stockton, Prin. G. W. Hug. 

Grants Pass Supt. R. R. Turner. 

Gresham Supt. C. C. Baker. 

Hood River Supt. E. E. Coad. 

Independence Prin. J. G. Mcintosh. 

Jefferson 

Junction City Supt. A. K. Mickey, Prin. Paul E. Baker. 

Klamath Falls ....Prin. J. T. Butcher. 

La Grande Supt. J. D. Stout. 

Lebanon Supt. F. M. Statler. 

Myrtle Point Supt. R. E. Baker. 

Nehalem Prin. W. L. Arant. 

Newberg Supt. W. W. Wiley. 

North Bend Supt. A. G. Raab. 

Ontario Supt. E. B. Conklin. 

Parkplace Prin. Frank Radmaker. 

Pendleton Supt. J. S. Landers, Prin. A. C. Hampton. 

Roseburg Supt. L. L. Baker, Prin. J. W. Groves. 

Salem Supt. J. M. Powers, Prin. R. L. Kirk. 

Sherman County, Moro Supt. W. C. Bryant. 

Springfield Supt. H. C. Baughman. 

Tillamook Prin. Jas. Goldsworthy. 

Union 

Wheeler County, Fossil ...Prin. John Blough. 

Woodburn Prin. H. F. Durham. 

Yamhill Prin. Knapp. 

This list is incomplete owing to delay on the part of some schools 
in making application prior to the time of going to press. 

Schools by Districts. 

Eastern Oregon — Athena, Baker City, Crook County, Enterprise, 
Elgin, La Grande, Ontario, Pendleton, Sherman County, Union, Wheeler 
County. 

Columbia River — Astoria, The Dalles, Gresham, Hood River, Nehalem, 
Newberg, Parkplace, Tillamook, Woodburn, Yamhill. 

Central Oregon — Albany, Cottage Grove, Eugene, Independence, Jef- 
ferson, Junction City, Lebanon, Salem, Springfield. 

Southern Oregon — Grants Pass, Klamath County, Roseburg. 

Coos County — Coquille, Myrtle Point, North Bend. 




JOSEPHINE RANDALL HENRY NORTON ERROL GIL KEY 

GRANTS PASS DEBATING TEAM. 

Champions Southern Oregon District. Winners of Inter-Distriet debate with 
Junction City. Winners State Championship from Pendleton, at Villard Hall, 
University of Oregon, June 4, 1909. 




ROYAL ROWLAND HAROLD J. WARNER FRANK E. ENGDAHL 

PENDLETON DEBATING TEAM. 

Champions Eastern Oregon District. Winners of Inter-District contest 

with Newberg. 



PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE AT THE INTER-DISTRICT CONTESTS 
AND AT THE FINAL CONTEST. 

Guarantee of Bank Deposits. 

Resolved, That the voters of Oregon should give their endorsement 
to the proposed law for State guarantee of bank deposits. 



PROPOSITIONS FOR DISTRICT DEBATES. 

To be used in all but the first preliminary debates. 
Eastern Oregon District, 
commission plan of city government. 

Resolved, That the "Commission Plan" for city government insures 
increase of efficiency and decrease of corruption in city offices. 

Columbia River District. 

capital punishment. 

Resolved, That life imprisonment, with restricted power of pardon, 
should be substituted for capital punishment in Oregon. 

Central Oregon District, 
international disarmament. 

Resolved, That the nations should reduce their armaments to the 
minimum necessary for police duty. 

Southern Oregon District. 

single tax. 

Resolved, That the system of single tax, as advocated by Henry 
George, should be adopted in Oregon. 

Coos County District. 

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS. 

Resolved, That postal savings banks should be established by the 
federal government. 



BIBLIOGRAPHIES. 

Statement on literature for the state and district questions of the 
Oregon High School Debating League, 1909-10. 

The H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, Minn., will rent periodical 
articles upon any subject. The cost of the first article in each order 
is ten cents and for each additional article ordered at same time, five 
cents. Articles may be kept two weeks. All of the books noted may 
be bought from any dealer. 

The Oregon Library Commission, Cornelia Marvin, Secretary, has 
issued a circular upon debating, which contains suggestions in regard 
to public documents, indexes, and reference books of value to the debating 
society. Bliss' "Encyclopedia of Social Reforms" should be consulted for 
most of the subjects. 



GUARANTEE OF BANK DEPOSITS. 

General References. 

Lyman, Government Insurance of Bank Deposits. Democrat Printing 
Co., Madison, Wis., 25 cents. 

This pamphlet contains reprints of articles upon both sides of the question, 
and considers the Oklahoma law in its original form, without the amendments 
enacted by the last legislature. 

Fiske, The Modern Bank. Appleton, $1.50. 

This book was written before the question of guarantee was much agitated, 
and does not contain anything upon this subject, but it is a comprehensive 
.and readable account of the various functions of the present day bank and 
the methods by which its work is done. It also contains chapters upon foreign 
banking systems, including the Canadian system which is being strongly 
advocated for the United States. 

The following states have passed voluntary or compulsory guarantee 
laws: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas. Laws 
may be found in the last volume of session laws of each State. It is 
probable that it will be impossible to secure separate copies of the laws, 
as the Banking Board and Secretary of each State have requests for 
more than they can fill. Copy of the proposed law for Oregon may be 
obtained from the Oregon Library Commission, also copy of the amended 
Oklahoma law. 

Students should secure the report of the Oregon Bank Examiner, 
and the last monthly statement, showing condition of banks in the State. 

The American Bankers' Association has published some articles 
against guarantee, and its proceedings contain many references to the 
subject. This literature may probably be obtained from the local banker. 

The report of the United States Comptroller of Currency gives state- 
ment of bank failures. 

The Oregon Library Commission has several collections of the best 
literature upon this subject, but will loan the volumes of newspaper 
and periodical clippings only upon special guarantee, as many of them 
cannot easily be replaced. 

Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, Article 2. Secretary of State, 
Guthrie, Oklahoma. 

History of Banking, John Jay Knox. New York Safety Fund Law, 
pp. 401-414. 

Affirmative. 

Guarantee of Bank Deposits, Alex H. Revell, Chicago. 

Banking Insurance, Message of Governor, E. W. Hoch, Topeka, Kan- 
sas, January 8, 1907. 

Insurance of Bank Deposits, Jas. E. Schow, Luck, Wis. 

Shall Bank Deposits Be Guaranteed? A. B. Nettleton, Review of 
Reviews; 37:340-5, March, 1908. 

Speeches and documents printed and distributed by the National 
Democratic Committee; address, Chicago, Illinois. 

Negative. 

Should National Bank Deposits Be Guaranteed by the Government or 
by a Deposit With the Government — In Either Case the Necessary 
Funds to Be Raised by Taxing All the Banks on Their Deposits? An 
address by James B. Forgan, President First National Bank, Chicago, 111. 

Insuring Bank Deposits; History Condemns It. Hon. A. J. Frame, 
Waukesha, Wisconsin. 

Guarantee of Bank Deposits. Prof. J. L. Laughlin, Scribner's Maga- 
zine; 44:101-9, July, 1908. 

Government Insurance of Deposits. Outlook; 88:55, June 11, 1908. 

Objections to Bank Deposit Insurance. D. McKinley, Review of 
Reviews, March, 1908. 

Speeches and documents printed and distributed by the Republican 
National Committee; address, Chicago, Illinois. 

8 



LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS. 

The American Peace Society has published several good pamphlets 
upon this subject. Price list of their publications may be obtained 
from the western office of the society, the Southern California Peace 
Society, 414 Severance Building, Los Angeles, California. 

The Library of Congress has published a bibliography "International 
Arbitration," and the H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, Minn., has pub- 
lished a book which contains a collection of periodical articles on the 
"Enlargement of the Navy." Price, $1.00. 

The Navy Department, Washington, D. C, has recently published a 
pamphlet giving information upon the principal navies of the world. 

Statistics in regard to army and navy expenditures may be found 
in the World Almanac, or any recent statistical compilation. 

The Annual Proceedings of Lake Mohonk Conference on International 
Arbitration, Mohonk Lake, New York, contains many good papers upon 
this subject. 

References should be made to a file of the Presidents' messages and 
Congressional Records, both of which may be obtained through the 
Congressmen. 

Mahan's "Some Neglected Aspects of War" (Little, $1.50), contains 
six articles, demonstrating the necessity of war in modern civilization, 
and the impossibility of replacing it by any other agency. 

The files of The Independent, New York, contain many articles 
dealing with the peace movement. 

Hull: The Two Hague Conferences and Their Contribution to Inter- 
national Law. Ginn & Co., $1.65. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 

The H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, has published a series of reprints 
of periodical articles upon this subject. Price, $1.00. 

There is a brief in Brookings and Ringwalt's "Briefs for Debate," 
and an excellent article against capital punishment in Shaler's "The 
Citizen" (Barnes, $1.40). Wines' "Punishment and Reformation" 
(Crowell, $1.75), gives a history of capital punishment. The book as 
a whole shows the trend of prison reform. 

The death penalty has been abolished in Maine, Michigan, and Wis- 
consin, and practically so in Rhode Island and Kansas. It was abolished 
in Colorado in 1897 and re-enacted in 1901. It was also abolished and 
re-established in Iowa. 

The Commission has all of the available articles upon this subject 
in its debate libraries, many of them, however, not duplicated. 

COMMISSION PLAN OF CITY GOVERNMENT. 

General References. 

The H. W. Wilson Co., Minneapolis, has a volume of reprints of 
periodical articles; price, $1.00. 

The "City Hall," a magazine published in Des Moines, Iowa, contains 
many articles upon the Des Moines system. Copies of the magazine 
for the first six months of 1909 may be had for $1.00. 

The Proceedings of the National Municipal League, $2.00 a volume, 
and some of the best books upon municipal government should be con- 
sulted, among them Deming's "Government of American Cities" (Put- 
nam, $1.50) . This book contains the "Municipal Program" adopted by 
the National Municipal League. 

Wisconsin has passed a State law, providing for this method of 
city government. The State does not issue reprint of the law but it 
may be found in the latest session laws. Other states and many cities 
have adopted the plan and full list of them with their charters may be 



Jyjfe* 



EDITH ALLGER RALPH COKE CLARENCE KIBBLER OSCAR STAUFF ELLEN ANDERSON 

NORTH BEND DEBATING TEAM. 
Champions Coos County District. 




HERBERT THOM HELEN LAING ARDA KIRK 

JUNCTION CITY DEBATING TEAM. 
Champions Central Oregon District. 



found in the Commission library. The demand for these reports and 
charters is so great that it will be impossible for debating societies 
to secure them. 

Commission Government in Texas, Albert Bushnell Hart, in the 
Boston Evening Transcript, Boston, Mass., April 11, 1908. 

City Government by Commission, Economic Club of Boston. Pamphlet 
reprinting addresses delivered before that club, January 11 and 21, 1907. 

Charter of the City of Houston, 1905. Address City Clerk, Houston, 
Texas. 

An Act to Provide for the Government of Certain Cities, House 
Bill No. 631, May 13, 1908. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Address 
Secretary of State, Boston, Mass. 

Suggestions for the Proposed Revision of the City Charter of 
Burlington, Vermont, W. J. Patten, Esq., 1906. 

Charter of Des Moines, Iowa, 1907. Address City Clerk, Des Moines, 
Iowa. 

Valuable articles on the general subject appeared in the Chautauquan 
in the issue of June, 1908. 

The Des Moines Plan of Municipal Government. Robert Campbell, 
in American Political Science Review, August, 1907. 

The Newport Plan. Rear- Admiral F. T. Chadwick, U. S. N. (retired). 
Proceedings of the National Municipal League, Providence, R. I., meeting, 
1907. 

New City Charter, Kansas City, Mo., 1908. 

The City Commission Charter Act, City Club, Topeka, Kansas. 

Annual Report of Mayor on City Affairs, Houston, Texas, 1905 
and 1906. 

Galveston's Commission Government, E. R. Cheeseborough, in the 
Galveston Daily News, April, 1908. Reprinted from Citizens' Bulletin, 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Affirmative. 

Galveston, a Business Administration. George Kibbe Turner, Mc- 
Clure's Magazine, October, 1906. 

Texas Idea: City Government by a Board of Directors. H. J. 
Haskell, Outlook; 85:839-43, April 13, 1907. 

City Government by Fewer Men. President Chas. W. Eliot, World's 
Work; 14:9419-26, October, 1907. 

Galveston and Houston. G. W. James, Arena; 38:144-9, July, 1907. 

City Government by Commission. George Kibbe Turner, New York; 
Hon. James M. Head, Nashville. Addresses before the Economic Club 
of Boston, Mass., January 11, 1907. 

City Government by Commission. Sidney J. Dillon, Economic Club, 
Boston, January 21, 1907. 

Negative. 

City Government by Commission, an address before the Economic 
Club of Boston, J. H. Beale, Jr., Harvard University, January 21, 1907. 

City Government by Commission, an address before the Economic 
Club of Boston, Mass. Hon. Wm. M. Ivins, Chairman of Committee 
on the Revised Charter of New York, January 21, 1907. 

The Newport Plan. Rear-Admiral F. T. Chadwick (retired), Municipal 
Journal and Engineer, New York, January, 1908. 

As usually happens, the advocates of the new plan have written more 
fully and frequently than the opponents, and the arguments for the 
negative must be drawn largely from books and articles upon general 
administration. Files of The Post of Kansas City, Kansas, for April 
and May, 1908, contain many articles and speeches, opposing the adoption 
of the plan at an election held June 2, 1908. The Wisconsin Spectator, 
October 1, 1908, published at Madison, Wisconsin, contained briefs, 

11 



affirmative and negative, and a very full bibliography. Briefs and 
bibliography were reprinted from The Speaker, Swarthmore, Pa. The 
Reader's Guide, which may be found in any public librarv. gives a large 
number of references not included in this Bulletin. 

SINGLE TAX. 

For Single Tax. 

George. Progress and Poverty. Doubleday, $1.00; paper, 50 cents. 
Shearman. Natural Taxation. Doubleday, $1.00; paper, 50 cents. 
Fillebrown, A. B. C. of Taxation. Doubleday,. $1.20. 

Against Single Tax. 

Walker. Land and Its Rent. 

Seligman. Essays in Taxation. Macmillan, $3.00. (Out of print. New 
edition being printed.) 

Mallock. Property and Progress. 

General Works on Public Finance. 

Adams. Finance. Holt, $2.75. 

Plehn. Public Finance. Macmillan, $1.60. 

Wells. Theory and Practice of Taxation. Appleton, $2.00. 

Means. Methods of Taxation. Dodd, $2.50. 

Seligman. Essay in Taxation. Macmillan, $3.00 per volume. 

The trustees of the Joseph Fels Fund of America, Commercial Tribune 
Building, Cincinnati, Ohio, are organized for the purpose of promoting 
single tax in the United States. 

The Single Tax Information Bureau, 134 Clarkson Street, Brooklyn, 
New York, has some pamphlets for distribution. 

The Oregon "Voters' Handbook," used at the last election, contains 
an argument for single tax in Oregon. 

There are briefs in Ringwalt's "Briefs on Public Questions" and 
Brookings and Ringwalt's "Briefs for 'Debate." Articles in the "Inter- 
national Encyclopedia" and Bliss' "Encyclopedia of Social Reforms" 
should be read. Students should also consult the best works on economics, 
among them the text-books of Fetter, Seager, and Seligman. 

In ordering the periodical articles from the H. W. Wilson Co. instruc- 
tion should be given to include the best articles upon the Budget, recently 
discussed in the British Parliament. 

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS. 

General References. 

The Librarian of Congress has published a bibliography upon the 
subject. There is a brief in Ringwalt's "Briefs Upon Public Questions." 

The following Government documents should be consulted: Reports 
of the Postmaster-General, Congressional Records, Presidents' messages, 
report of the Comptroller of Currency for 1897, and documents and 
reports upon this subject recently presented to Congress, among them 
Senate Report 525, of the Sixtieth Congress, First Session, and Senate 
Miscellaneous Document 136, of the Fifty-second Congress, First Session. 

The American Bankers' Association has published articles opposed 
to postal savings banks. 

Hamilton's "Savings and Savings Institutions" (Macmillan, $2.25), 
describes the system in foreign countries. 

Postal Savings Banks in Foreign Countries. House Document No. 
723, Fifty-ninth Congress, Second Session. 

Encyclopedia of Social Reform. W. D. P. Bliss, pp. 1066, 1216. 

New International Encyclopedia, XIV, 421. 

12 



Briefs on Public Questions. J. C. Ringwalt, Longmans, Green & 
Co., New York. $1.20 net. 

List of Books with Reference to Periodicals. A. P. C. Griffin, Library 
of Congress, Washington, D. C. 

Files of The Independent, New York. 

Affirmative. 

The Philippine Postal Savings Bank. Kemmerer, Review of Reviews, 
October, 1906. 

Annual Report of the Postmaster-General of the United States, 
November, 1907. Washington, D. C. 

Address of Mr. Meyer to the New England Postmasters. Hon. George 
von L. Meyer, Washington, D. C. 

Postal Progress. James L. Cowles, 6 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 

Postal Savings Banks Depositories. Hon. James A. Gary, Munsey, 
June, 1898. 

Postal Savings Banks. Hon. Knute Nelson, March 30, 1907. Speech 
in United States Senate. 

Senate Bill 5508, Sixtieth Congress, First Session, introduced by 
Senator Philander Knox, of Pennsylvania. "To establish a system of 
postal savings banks and for other purposes." 

Negative. 

Objections to a Postal Savings Bank. Hon. Geo. E. Roberts, North 
American Review, February 15, 1908. 

Proceedings of Illinois Bankers' Associations. Chicago Banker, Vol. 
21, September, 1906. 

Address on the Postal Savings System. Address before the Six 
o'Clock Club, Racine, Wis., by Hon. Geo. E. Roberts, President Com- 
mercial National Bank, Chicago. 

Public Ownership: Bankers Oppose Postal Savings Banks. A. L. 
Benson, Arena; 36:552-3, November, 1906. 



DEBATE LIBRARIES. 

The Secretary of the State Library Commission, Salem, has collected 
debate libraries on a great many questions of current interest. These 
libraries are sent out to the high schools free except for transportation 
charges. Write to the Secretary for School Circulars Nos. 5 and 6, 
which not only explain the purpose and use of the debate libraries 
but also give a list of books for debating societies, and a list of over 
one hundred questions for debate in addition to the State and district 
questions. 

The Commission has prepared especially full debate libraries on the 
district questions — Commission Plan of City Government, Postal Savings 
Banks, International Disarmament, Capital Punishment, and Single Tax 
— and these are available for the first preliminary debates. The Secre- 
tary of the Commission will gladly furnish you all desired information. 

The bibliographies on the State and district questions prepared by 
the Library Commission have been largely supplemented from the Bulle- 
tins of the Debating and Public Discussion division of the University 
of Wisconsin, especially on the questions of Guarantee of Bank Deposits, 
Commission Form of City Government, and Postal Savings Banks. 



13 




VERNON MOTSCHENBACHKR 





KATHRYN BRYAN DALE TREW 

NEWBERG DEBATING TEAM. 
Champions Columbia River District. 



NOTES. 

Use the Debating League not as an end in itself but as a means 
of stimulating the regular debating work of the school, which should 
be continued throughout the year. 

Strive to popularize debate by introducing musical and other features 
into the program, making the people feel that they have received more 
of value than the necessary fee to cover expenses. 

Report all debates fully in the local papers, and publish the decisions 
in the Portland papers. 

Prompt reports of arrangements for debates and decisions should 
be made to the district director. 

Don't fail to secure School Circulars Nos. 5 and 6 from the Secretary 
of the State Library Commission, Salem. 

Hold your "try-outs" for members of your debating teams early, 
so that as soon as you have been paired by your district director and 
your question is chosen, you may at once start in on thorough prepara- 
tion for the debate. 

Since the triangular system is new to many persons, the following 
explanation of its working is given : 

Assume nine schools in the district (the plan can be adjusted to 
three or any higher number), divided into three groups of three each. 
Each of the three schools in a group shall prepare an affirmative and a 
negative team of three debaters each to debate the group question. 
The affirmative team shall debate at home with the negative team of 
one of the other two schools, while the negative team shall debate away 
from home with the affirmative team of the remaining school— all three 
debates being held the same evening. Each decision shall count one 
point, and each judge's vote shall count one point, making a possible 
maximum of eight points for any one school in two debates. The school 
securing the largest number of points shall be the winner. The three 
winners of the three groups shall then form a new triangular group, 
in which the winner would be the district champion. 

This system, which is coming into wide use in the country, has 
the following advantages: 

(1) It develops an affirmative and a negative team at each school, 
thus doubling the number of debaters, making both sides stronger and 
increasing home interest. 

(2) No school has the advantage over another in sides of the ques- 
tion, and the frequent dissatisfaction over biased judgments will be 
very largely obviated. 

(3) It requires but two sets of debates to determine the district 
championship, instead of three, as at present. 

(4) Every school will have at least one home debate. 

(5) The plan is to be used for closely grouped schools, leaving the 
present plan to be followed, if desired, in more remote schools. 



ARGUMENTATION. 

Adopted from Professor R. L. Lyman's "Principles of Effective 
Debating," by Gustave W. Buchen, Instructor in Public Speaking, 
University of Oregon. 

An effective argument is composed of three parts, an introduction, 
an argument proper, and a conclusion. 



15 



A. INTRODUCTION. 

The introduction is that part of the argument which cuts the whole 
case down to a few central or vital issues, upon which the decision of 
fair-minded men should rest. The good debater is not content to talk 
on the subject; he must go right to the heart of the case and discuss 
only the essentials. For instance, one debating the question, "Resolved, 
That immigration should be restricted by a literacy test," when he 
comes to debate finds himself grouping his arguments about the follow- 
ing central points: 

1st. Have illiterate immigrants pauper and criminal tendencies? 

2d. Are illiterates hard to assimilate? 

3d. Do they lower the standard of American life? 

4th. Can a literacy test be effectively applied? 



1. ORIGIN OF QUESTION— FIRST STEP IN ANALYSIS. 

The starting point of any argument lies in the real or in the 
alleged existence of a human need. Some evils are complained of. 
The first purpose of the argument is either to prove the existence or 
the non-existence of those evils. If it be proved or admitted that evils 
exist, it becomes the purpose of argument to show that a certain remedy 
will remove those evils. For instance, take the question of municipal 
ownership of gas plants. The first thing a debater should ask himself 
is, why are we discussing the question. He will find that citizens are 
complaining that private companies are charging too high rates for 
their gas, and that the service rendered is poor. Before he can argue 
for municipal ownership or against it, he must show beyond doubt that 
the alleged evils do or do not exist, as the case may be. 

Thus it is that the very first step for a debater to take is to answer 
for himself the questions: Why are we interested in this subject? Is 
there some evil, admitted to exist, or alleged to exist? If this evil exists, 
is the proposed remedy satisfactory, or do some people object to it 
because another remedy is better? 



2. DEFINITION OF TERMS SECOND STEP IN ANALYSIS. 

The careful debater will next make certain that in his proposition 
there are no terms of doubtful meaning. If there are, he will at once 
make their meaning clear. An audience should know at once exactly 
what the program is for which a debater stands. For instance, suppose 
one is arguing the question, "Resolved, That a commission should be 
given the power to fix railroad rates." Two terms at once need explicit 
definition. "A commission" is doubtful. The debater must carefully 
define the nature of the commission, the number of its members, the 
scope of its other powers, etc. Then, what is this power of "fixing 
rates?" In a recent Wisconsin-Michigan University debate, each team 
had a different interpretation for this term. Wisconsin contended that 
"fixing rates" meant the substitution of a definite rate, for the rate 
complained of. Michigan argued that "fixing rates" meant the substi- 
tution, not of a definite rate, but of a maximum rate. Michigan showed 
that the Wisconsin interpretation was based on the Esche-Townsend 
bill of 1904, two years old, while their interpretation was based on 
the Dolliver bill of 1906. In two years the meaning of the term "rate 
fixation" had been changed. Thus it is that in the history and develop- 
ment of the discussion lies the best method of defining all doubtful 
terms. 

16 



3. CLASH OF ARGUMENTS— THIRD STEP IN ANALYSIS. 

Another indispensable step in the good preparation of a debate is 
technically called the "clash of arguments." This means a careful 
balancing over against each other of the leading arguments on both 
sides of the question. Young students most frequently go astray, by 
disregarding the other side entirely in the preparation of a debate. 
In reality, it is even more important to know the opponent's strong 
arguments and be prepared to meet them, than it is to know one's 
own case. A young debater or an older one for that matter, can do 
nothing better than to take two sheets of paper; upon one list place 
the strongest arguments for the affirmative; upon the other place in 
logical order the arguments of the negative — then placing the two 
papers side by side he can tell where the real vital difference in opinion 
lies. The issues in the debate, the points which he must prove in 
his constructive case, and those which he must disprove in refutation 
will appear in this "clash in opinion." Upon the fullness and accuracy 
with which he sees the strength of each side will his analysis cut the 
case down to the real issues. 

4. EXCLUSION OF EXTRANEOUS, ADMITTED OR GRANTED 

MATTER. 

This is called the fourth step in analysis. In the public discussion 
of almost any question the careful thinker finds much matter which 
seems extraneous to the real issues. Most questions of economics or 
politics are intimately associated with many other questions. To dis- 
regard all side issues is absolutely necessary. In the railway rate 
question the poor debater may waste half his time arguing about "over 
capitalization" of railroads, not seeing that this matter is usually 
admitted even by those who oppose rate regulation. If not admitted, 
it can be shown to have vital connection only with the question of 
high rates, being entirely extraneous to the issues of discrimination of 
rates and rebating, which are the most important issues. 

Moreover, in almost every subject there are certain arguments which 
cannot be disputed. These are classed as "admitted matter." In the 
Nebraska-Wisconsin inter-collegiate debate of 1905, Nebraska argued 
for fifteen minutes, proving that accidents on railroads are increasing 
in the United States at an alarming rate. They found themselves 
in the uncomfortable position of having wasted fifteen minutes, for 
Wisconsin admitted at once that accidents are increasing, preparing to 
argue that the method of relieving this evil suggested by Nebraska 
was inadvisable. Careful analysis will prevent just such waste of time. 

5. STATEMENT OF SPECIAL ISSUES— LAST STEP IN ANALYSIS. 

We hope that it has been made plain that all these various steps of 
analysis are work preliminary to good debating and that they must 
be taken by a careful debater after he has acquired all the information 
possible on his subject. After studying the origin of the question, 
making clear and sure the meaning of terms, examining carefully the 
case of the other side, rigorously excluding all matters which may be 
omitted from the discussion, the debater should have left the center, 
the heart, the vital issue in the case. These we may call special issues. 
It is well to state these to one's self in the form of questions. 

The first part of an argument, then — the introduction — should contain 
enough of this process of analysis, to show the audience why the issues, 
chosen by the debater, are the correct ones. The various steps of analysis 
given above are: (1) The origin of the question; (2) definition of 
doubtful terms; (3) clash or arguments; (4) exclusion of extraneous, 
admitted, or waived matter; and (5) a clear statement of the central 

17 



issues. These various steps represent processes of thought, through 
which all careful thinkers go, before they determine what the central 
ideas of their address shall be. Not all of the steps of analysis need 
appear in the actual debate, but not one step can safely be omitted 
from the preliminary thinking of the debater. No better advice 
can be given tp any student of public address, than to tell him to 
analyze his question thoroughly before starting to write his speech, 
to choose a very few points, not over three or four. Being sure that 
these are the vital issues, let him mass his evidence and argument 
around them. Thus it is that the purpose of the introduction is simply 
to get ready to debate. The debate itself is left to the second paL-t 
of the argument — the argument proper. 



B. ARGUMENT PROPER. 

1. ARRANGEMENT OF PROPOSITIONS. 

The second division of a well-constructed argument is the argument 
proper. Having found the special issues and made them clear to the 
audience, the debater now proceeds to take them up one at a time, 
and to present his evidence upon them. Suppose that one who is debat- 
ing the literacy test for immigration had determined upon the issues 
as given on page 13. Let him now take four sheets of paper, upon 
the top of each one of which, let him write a proposition which shall 
correspond with his view of one of the special issues. He will then, 
supposing him to be on the negative, have four sheets of paper, headed 
separately as follows: 

1st. Illiterate immigrants do not have alarming criminal and pauper 
tendencies. 

2d. The immigrants concerned are not hard to assimilate. 

3d. Illiterate immigrants do not seriously lower the American 
standard of living. 

4th. The literacy test will not be effective. 

It is perfectly evident that if these negative contentions can be 
established convincingly, the affirmative will have little ground to stand 
upon. Now, it must be kept in mind that it is not effective debating, 
merely to talk about these points for the allotted time. Each proposition 
must be proved. The careful debater will know accurately just how 
much effective evidence he has at his disposal on each point. He will 
have determined before the debate just what is the best order and 
arrangement in which to present his proof. The best way to accomplish 
this is to take each one of the four sheets of paper, and tabulate, 
classify, and arrange on it all the evidence which is appropriate. 

2. EVIDENCE. 

As has been said above, the real effectiveness of the debate depends 
upon the convincingness of the proof, which is presented upon the esssen- 
tial issues. No one, therefore, can hope to be an efficient debater, who 
is ignorant of the essential principles which govern the handling of 
evidence. He must know (1) how to value evidence, and (2) how to 
present evidence. 

1. How to Value Evidence. 

There are two kinds of evidence which a debater must know how 
to distinguish. 

(a) Testimonial evidence is that which is drawn from the opinions 
of authorities, or the direct statements of fact by witnesses. 

18 



(6) Circumstantial evidence consists of inferences drawn from facts; 
in other words, it consists of reasoning about facts. 

The distinction between the two kinds of evidence is well brought 
out by Professor Huxley in the following illustration: 

"Let us suppose that several boys go in a pool of water to swim. One 
of these is seen by his companions to dive into the water, and he 
does not arise. His death is reported. This is called testimonial evi- 
dence. The boy was seen to drown, you are told, and your judgment 
concedes the fact readily. But is the proposition proved? * * * The 
authorities, later, drag the pool and find a body. The body is taken 
to the morgue, and the keeper there, an expert on such matters, makes 
the startling assertion that instead of a few hours, the body must 
have been immersed for several days. He concludes this from circum- 
stantial evidence. The keeper has no positive knowledge that this 
particular body has been under water so long. Still he has seen thou- 
sands of bodies, and none has presented such an appearance after so 
short a period. * * *" 

In the first instance the statement of the boy is testimonial evidence, 
sometimes called direct evidence. In the second instance, the reasoning 
drawn from the fact as to the appearance of the body, is circumstantial 
evidence, sometimes called indirect evidence. 

HOW TO VALUE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. 

If a witness testifies that illiterate immigrants in the city of New 
York tend to become paupers, how much belief shall one give to his 
statement? Evidently the value of his affirmation depends on four 
things. 

(1) Is the witness an expert or an authority on the subject of 
immigration? 

A debater must always be sure that his hearers are willing to accept 
the statements of his authorities as worthy of belief. A man may be 
an authority on one subject, say the management of street railways, 
and know practically nothing about immigration. If a United States 
Commissioner of Immigration witnesses as to the effect of illiterate 
immigration, his testimony is ordinarily more valuable than that of 
an unknown slum worker; but the slum worker's statement is often 
more worthy of acceptance than that of the pastor of a wealthy city 
church; the pastor's statement ordinarily would be more valuable than 
the affirmation of a business man of Wall Street. Thus in every case 
the debater must carefully determine the right and the ability of his 
witness to testify. On almost every subject it is possible to find witnesses 
who give directly opposing testimony. Evidently that debater is stronger, 
who makes his audience feel that his witness is more credible. 

(2) Is the witness honest? Is he prejudiced? 

Secretary Taft applied this test to the evidence given by a certain 
Tracy Robinson, a citizen of Colon, who had made damaging assertions 
concerning the work of the United States Government in Panama. 
"His animus against the Government is because it devoted its first 
attention to the expenditure of money in Panama, and thus raised the 
value of property in that city; and secondly, that in the enforcement 
of health regulations by the sanitary department in Colon, he found 
it necessary to complain that his vested rights were being interfered 
with. He was willing to have sanitary regulations enforced against 
his neighbors." Evidently the statements of a man so prejudiced against 
the United States Government must be accepted with reservation. 

(3) Is the testimony consistent with other known facts? Is it 
consistent with itself? 

For instance, it is contrary to all human experience that a gentle, 
timid, kindly old woman should commit a revolting murder. Again, 
if A testified that he saw a blow struck with a sharp-edged weapon, 

19 



and it is proved that the wound must have been made by a blunt club, 
A's testimony is inconsistent with known facts, and must be discredited. 
Again, to be valuable, testimonial evidence must be consistent with itself. 
If a witness can be shown to give contradictory evidence, he is largely 
discredited. 

(4) Under what conditions and circumstances was the testimony 
given? 

Was the evidence given freely or under compulsion? If a man 
accused of wrong is compelled to testify against his will, he has incentive 
to lie. If he is evidently trying to assist investigators to find the truth, 
if he willingly presents his records and his books, his statements are 
more open to belief. 

Secretary Taft thus applies this test to the statements of a magazine 
article, the writer of which stayed only twenty-eight hours in Panama: 
"Assuming that after landing and docking, the writer at once began 
work, it is not unfair to say that his opportunities for observation were 
limited to twenty-eight hours, including day time and night time. It 
would seem not to be a long period in which to look into and determine 
the character of engineering difficulties of the greatest constructive 
enterprise yet undertaken by man." 

HOW TO VALUE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

There are three common forms of circumstantial evidence: 

1. Generalization. 

2. Argument from causal relation. 

3. The argument from resemblance. 

(1) Generalization is made when a general conclusion is based upon 
the observation of many instances. For instance, the morgue keeper 
referred to in the illustration on page 16, having examined thousands 
of drowned people, has observed that several days under water produces 
similar appearance in all bodies. This is generalization. If a witness 
testifies that illiterate immigrants become paupers, he makes a general 
statement based upon the observation of an indefinite number of indi- 
vidual immigrants. If he has known only three instances, his generali- 
zation is not sound. If he has known several hundred his generalization 
may be sound. But suppose the several hundred he has known are 
admitted to be the very worst type of immigrants. Then his generaliza- 
tion is less credible, for the instances observed are not typical — they 
are not fair samples of illiterate immigrants. To test a generaliza- 
tion, let the debater ask: (1) Has the witness observed enough instances? 
(2) Has he observed typical instances? 

(2) Argument from Causal Relationship. This is the most common 
form of argument. If one passes along a road, and finds the trees 
broken, houses and barns blown down, men and horses lying dead, 
destruction and devastation on all sides, he immediately concludes that 
some form of teriffic windstorm has swept through that section. He 
sees the effect, and reasons back to the cause. On the other hand, 
suppose he sees rapidly approaching him a cloud of peculiar shape 
and size, having a strangely ominous appearance. He recognizes it 
as a cyclone cloud, and reasons that if he is in the path of the storm, 
the havoc caused by it may injure him. He knows the cause and rea- 
sons to the effect. Simple as this reasoning seems, it is nevertheless 
one of the most difficult forms to handle. A man who argues that the 
panic of a certain year was the result of an agitation for free silver 
during the previous year, argues on the causal relationship; but he is 
fallacious, forgetting that most effects are the result not of one, but 
of many contributing causes. When, therefore, one finds himself tempted 
to use an argument from causal relation, let him ask: (1) Is the cause 

20 



assigned sufficient to produce the alleged results? (2) Are there any 
other contributing causes? (3) Are there any causes at work likely 
to produce opposite results? 

(3) Argument from Resemblance. Lincoln used the argument from 
analogy when he said to those who were urging more active measures 
in prosecuting the Civil War: 

"Gentlemen, suppose that all the property you were worth was in 
gold, and you put it in the hands of Blondin, the famous rope-walker, 
to carry it across the Niagara Falls on a tight-rope. Would you 
shake the rope while he was passing over it, or keep shouting to him, 
'Blondin, stoop a little more. Go a little faster.' No, I am sure you 
would not. You would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and 
keep your hands off until he was safely over. Now, the Government 
is in the same situation. It is carrying an immense weight across a 
stormy ocean. Untold treasures are in its hands. It is doing the 
best it can. Don't badger it. Just keep still, and it will get you safely 
over." 

In this case it will be noticed that the analogy does not prove, it 
merely illustrates; but it makes the reasoning extremely convincing. 
Frequently one hears "Municipal ownership was successful in Glasgow — 
why not in our city?" or "Compulsory arbitration is successful in New 
Zealand, why not in the United States?" These are attempts to use 
the argument from resemblance. Now, the value of such a statement 
depends first upon proof that compulsory arbitration actually was 
successful in New Zealand. But secondly, upon the similarity of con- 
ditions between New Zealand and the United States. A skillful debater 
will point out two vital differences in condition, which render it extremely 
doubtful whether compulsory arbitration, even if successful in New 
Zealand, would be equally effective in the United States. In the first 
place New Zealand has less than 1,000,000 inhabitants, the United 
States nearly 90,000,000. But secondly and more important, in New 
Zealand the labor unions are compelled to incorporate, thus making 
them amenable to legal methods; in the United States the unions not 
being incorporated, have no legal existence, and therefore it is impossible 
to enforce decrees of arbitration boards. In short, to test an argument 
from resemblance, ask: (1) Are the general conditions similar? (2) Is 
there dissimilarity in any essential particular? 

2. How to Detect Errors in Reasoning. 

In the valuation of evidence one must constantly be on guard against 
erroneous reasoning. An unsound mode of arguing, which seems con- 
vincing, but really is not, is called a fallacy. If the young debater 
will memorize the following list of the most common fallacies, and will 
diligently examine both his own argument, and that of his opponent, to 
detect errors which resemble the illustrations given below, he will go 
far toward protecting himself against unsound reasoning: 

FALLACIES. 

1. Hasty generalization. 

2. False analogy. 

3. Non-causal relationship. 

4. Begging the question. 

(a) Arguing in a circle. 

(b) Assertion. 

(c) Arguing from ambiguous evidence. 

5. Ignoring the question. 

(a) Beside the point. 

(b) Shifting ground. 

(c) Part to whole. 

(d) Objections. 

21 



TESTS. 

1. Hasty generalization. 

(a) Have enough instances been examined? 

(b) Are the instances typical ones? 

2. False analogy. 

(a) Are the general conditions similar? 

(b) Is there dissimilarity in any essential particular? 

3. Non-causal relationship. 

(a) Was the cause assigned sufficient to produce the result? 

(b) Were there any other contributing causes? 

(c) Are there any causes likely to produce opposite results? 

4. Begging the question. 

The three most important forms of the fallacy, "Begging the Ques- 
tion," may be distinguished as follows: 

(a) Arguing in a Circle. In this fallacy the debater assumes as 
true without presenting any proof, a point which is equivalent to the 
conclusion he wishes to reach. For example, a student trying to prove 
that Mr. Kipling was not a great poet said, "Many of the poems are 
in grossly bad taste, for they are so condemned by critics of refinement, 
inasmuch as if they do not condemn them, they cannot be called men 
of refinement." Another example follows: "A literacy test will raise 
the standard of immigration, for ability to read and write elevates the 
standard of men and women." In this argument, the student assumes 
the last clause as true — yet this last clause is exactly what he must 
prove to win his case. 

Test: Does the argument present any statement as proof which 
is practically the same as the proposition to be proved? 

(6) Assertion. This is by far the most simple and common form 
of fallacy. By assertion is meant the mere statement that something 
is true, which needs to be proved true. We should remember that nothing 
is true simply because someone says that it is true. For instance, the 
newspapers are full of assertions; simply to see a statement in print 
conveys no assurance of its truth. For example, one who tries to prove 
the Swiss are good bowmen, by saying that William Tell shot the apple 
from his son's head, is making an assertion. Other examples taken 
from students' papers follow: 

"All illiterate immigrants have vicious tendencies." 
"The free silver agitation was the cause of the panic." 
"Lack of patriotism in the United States causes difficulty in recruit- 
ing the army." 

Test: What right have I to take this man's unsupported statement? 
Should he not support his mere statement with definite proof? 

(c) Arguing from Doubtful Evidence. Frequently a careless reasoner 
will present evidence which may be open to several interpretations. For 
example: "I heard him say, 'That scoundrel of a D has been com- 
municating plans.' Dreyfus' name begins with D. He is under suspicion. 
Therefore, Dreyfus communicated the plans." Another example: "The 
slum districts of the city of X are crowded full of ignorant foreign- 
ers. This proves that illiterate immigrants crowd the low centers of 
our cities." 

Test: Even if the evidence presented is true, may it not have another 
meaning? 

The four most common forms of fallacy in "Ignoring the Question" 
may be distinguished as follows: 

(a) Beside the Point. A reasoner is guilty of this fallacy when 
he talks not upon the real question, but upon some side issue. When 

22 — 



the essential issue in the immigration question is found to be the effect 
which swarms of illiterates will have on criminality in the United 
States, it is beside the point to speak of the need for laborers in agri- 
cultural districts. 

Test: Does the evidence of the argument prove the essential point 
at issue? 

(b) Shifting Ground. This fallacy is made when a debater being 
dislodged from one position, calmly takes another, and then another. 
For example, a student arguing in favor of the incorporation of labor 
unions argued first that incorporation would benefit the unions them- 
selves; being driven from this stand by his opponent, he argued that 
incorporation would benefit the employer's associations; finally, being 
compelled to yield on this also, he triumphantly closed the debate by 
maintaining that incorporation of labor unions would benefit the general 
public. The skillful debater will not allow an opponent to fly from 
point to point. He will hold him to the essentials. 

Test: (a) Is the opponent talking on the essential issues? (b) Does 
he hold firmly to one point of view? 

(c) Arguing from Part to the Whole. It must constantly be borne 
in mind that what is true of a part may not be true of the whole. For 
instance, it would be very easy to cite many individual cases of illiterate 
immigrants who became industrious citizens; but because a small percent- 
age of them are valuable citizens, does not prove the same desirability 
for the majority. Again, in arguing for the "Consolidated system of 
township schools," a student having shown that the conveyance of pupils 
was practicable in many counties of the State, was surprised to find 
his opponent proving that in certain hilly counties near the Mississippi 
River such conveyance would be impracticable. 

Test: (a) Does the evidence cover only a part? (b) Is this part 
typical of the whole? 

(d) Objections. Merely to raise objections to a plan, is not con- 
clusive argument against it. It is obvious that any debatable question 
will have two sides. Therefore, when any new line of procedure is 
suggested it is easy enough to point out objections, often many of them. 
In almost every question, the decision must rest on not absolute — this 
is right, and this is wrong — but which is better, which is worse? For 
example, one may argue against the literacy test, that it is un-American 
in principle, that it is a radical departure from our customs, that it is 
unfair to certain classes oppressed in their native land; these and many 
other objections may be raised. But the skillful debater will hold his 
opponent carefully to the essential issues, even granting that certain 
objections must be counted against him. 

Test: (a) Do the objections bear upon an important issue? (6) Do 
the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? 

HOW TO MEET YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS: REFUTATION. 

In the preparation of a debate it is of the greatest importance to be 
prepared to meet the vital points in the argument of the opponent. 
A very common error among young debaters is to ignore the case of 
the other man. When not confronted by an adversary on the ?ame 
platform, it is easy even for an experienced public speaker to forget 
that many people in his audience have in mind certain objections to 
his arguments. Let the debater constantly repeat to himself these 
queries: What has my opponent said on this point? What can he say? 
What question will my thoughtful hearers naturally ask about my 
argument? How can I surmount this difficulty? Remember that the 
debater, or any other public speaker, is endeavoring to present the 
truth to other men, whose opinions and judgments, and even prejudices, 
he must respect. 

23 



First: What to Refute. 
One cannot meet all the arguments advanced on the other side. He 
must therefore determine what are the essential points made against 
him, and strike hard at them. Here again if the debater has analyzed 
his question well his task is comparatively simple. Answer the oppos- 
ing arguments which bear upon the special issues. Ignore all other 
arguments. Suppose one is debating the literacy test for immigration. 
By careful analysis he has found that the vital issues are those 
enumerated above. Affirmative opponent argues that the volume of 
immigration has increased with enormous rapidity. This argument can 
well be ignored by the negative, except insofar as it has been argued 
that American labor is interfered with. Or the' negative argues that 
steamship companies are largely at fault in urging ignorant foreigners 
to come to America. This argument, bearing on none of the special 
issues, may be ignored entirely by the affirmative. If, however, evi- 
dence is presented indicating that illiterate immigrants show an alarm- 
ing tendency to become criminals or paupers, the negative must not fail 
to reply. Suppose that the negative should convince the judges that 
more laborers are needed, that the American idea welcomes the oppressed, 
that a literacy test is not entirely effective, that all foreigners assimilate 
readily, but fails entirely to meet the point emphasized by opponents, 
that illiterate immigrants become criminals. In such a case the decision 
is likely to go to the affirmative. 

Second: Where to Place Refutation. 

Nothing is so fatal to good refutation as a memorized speech. One 
must cultivate the power of changing the order of presentation, of shift- 
ing his case to meet emergencies that arise, on the spur of the moment. 
Certain portions of one's prepared speech may well be omitted, others 
must be emphasized, others treated hastily, according to the plan of 
attack made by opponent. Rebuttal needs to be placed at the opening 
of a debate when a man is in favor of some new and untried idea. He 
must anticipate the objections which he knows are in the mind of his 
audience. An advocate of private ownership must very early in his 
debate dispel the fear that there are grave dangers of high cost and 
poor service in private ownership. It is well to leave a strong argu- 
ment of an opponent for the end of one's debate, if it is certain that 
one can demolish it. The futility of making a weak answer to a strong 
argument late in the debate is too obvious to need discussion. 

Opportunities for Rebuttal. The following list of questions, drawn 
up by Professor Baker of Harvard College, will furnish opportunity 
for rebuttal: 

1. Is the testimony of witness inconsistent with human experience, 
with known facts in the case, or with itself? 

2. Is there anything in the conditions under which a witness testifies 
which renders his evidence suspicious? 

3. Is the witness incompetent to testify because of prejudice or moral, 
physical, or mental weakness? 

4. Is your opponent's reasoning based on faulty observations? 

5. Has he assumed the truth of a premise which you have authority 
to disprove? 

6. Has your opponent ignored the real issues? 

7. Are his generalizations sound? Are the instances observed too 
few? Are they fair instances? 

8. Has your opponent used as cause, something which is merely 
a coincidence or an attendant circumstance? 

9. Has your opponent relied on a cause inadequate to produce the 
result alleged? 

10. Are there other contributing causes? 

11. Can you detect any other fallacious reasoning? 

24 



Third: How to Emphasize Refutation. 

This does not mean vociferous vocalization or violent gesticulation, 
which too frequently pass for emphasis. Emphasis in rebuttal means 
the handling of one's evidence in such a way as to prove that it is more 
worthy of belief than is the evidence of one's opponent. Never confront 
one witness by another unless you explain how your witness is more 
valuable than your opponent's. Again, make the significance of each 
portion of your argument very plain. Show how your constructive 
argument defeats the essential points which have been advanced against 
you. 

Fourth: Special Methods of Refutation 

There are four special kinds of rebuttal which a young debater 
ought to be able to use. (a) Reductio ad absurdum. (b) Enforcing 
the consequences, (c) The dilemma, (d) Residues. 

(a) Reductio ad absurdum. This as the name signifies is to show 
an absurdity in your opponent's argument. The following examples 
illustrate its use. 

When arguing the question of secession, Daniel Webster maintained 
that if the doctrine of secession were correct, a customs officer in any 
southern port, say Charleston, would be hanged no matter what policy 
he pursued. If he collected duties he would be hanged by the state 
authorities; if he failed to collect, he would be hanged by the federal 
authorities. 

(b) Enforcing the consequences. A most effective way of disposing of 
an opponent's case, is to carry his program out to its logical conclusion, 
showing that results would be disastrous. 

Carl Schurz replies in the following manner to a Mr. Miles Lewis 
Peck, who had written him a letter saying, "Conditions here seem 
very unsatisfactory to you, Mr. Schurz. I wonder you do not return to 
your native land. That I think is the best way for those who do not 
like the views of the rulers of this country, the voters." Mr. Schurz 
replies, "The rule you lay down is unreasonable. In justice you will 
have to apply it, as well as to me, to all the other persons in the same 
predicament. You will then, supposing you to be in the majority, send 
all those who differ from you politically out of the country, * * * but 
it is probable that the remaining majority would also divide into parties. 
You, being always of the majority party, would then, according to your 
rule, read the new minority party out of the country. Now you see 
that this operation, many times repeated, might at last leave Mr. Miles 
Lewis Peck, on the ground, lonesome and forlorn, in desolate self- 
appreciation." 

(c) The dilemma. In this method of refutation a debater shows 
that his opponent's case has only two alternatives, neither of which 
holds true. For example Lincoln used a perfect dilemma in his debates 
with Douglas. Douglas professed to advocate both Squatter Sovereignty 
and the Dred Scott decision. The doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty 
meant the people of any territory could decide for themselves whether 
they would admit or exclude slavery. The Dred Scott decision meant 
that a slaveholder could claim his slave in any territory. Lincoln 
saw the inconsistency and- asked Douglas this question, "Can the people 
of a territory, prior to the formation of a state constitution, in any 
lawful way exclude slavery?" This question produced a perfect 
dilemma. If Douglas answered the question "Yes", he would repudiate 
the Dred Scott decision and offend the South. If he answered it "No", 
he would repudiate Squatter Sovereignty and offend the North. 
Douglas saw his difficulty, and in endeavoring to avoid it, uttered what 
is known as the Freeport Heresy. He said that the people of the 
territory could not exclude slavery, but that by unfriendly legislation 
they could make it imposible for slavery to remain. Lincoln emphasized 

25 



the inconsistencey by showing that Douglas' reply meant that slavery 
could lawfully be excluded from a place where it had a lawful right 
to be. 

(d) Residues. This method of refutation is used when the debater 
reduces the case to a definite number of alternatives, then taking them 
up one at a time shows that each is impracticable. Burke uses this 
method as follows, " * * * as far as I am capable of discerning there are 
but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which 
prevails in your colonies and disturbs your government. These are, to 
change the spirit by removing the causes; to prosecute it as criminal, 
or to comply with it as necessary." Burke then shows that the first 
two alternatives cannot hold, and continues, "* * * If then the 
removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be impracticable, 
if the idea of criminal process be inapplicable, what yet remains? No way 
is open but the last, to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or 
if you please, to submit to it as a necessary evil." 

C. CONCLUSION. 

Having discussed at some length the first two divisions of a good 
argument, the introduction and the argument proper, it remains to 
discuss briefly the conclusion. Any well constructed public address 
should place at the close the strongest ideas in a vigorous, emphatic 
manner. Therefore, let the debater present a summary of the main 
propositions in his argument proper — showing exactly what ground he 
has been trying to cover. 

PRINCIPLES OF DELIVERY. 

Having spoken of analysis, evidence, and rebuttal, it now remains 
to discuss briefly the fourth essential of good debating — presentation, 
and we offer to young debaters the following suggestions: 

1. VOICE. 

The voice is the most important organ used in public address. Let 
it be mellow, flexible, forceful, then it will be pleasing. It is very 
important to be able to hear one's own voice, and to determine not to 
inflict upon any hearers sounds which would be distressing to one's self 
if they came from another. Few people have opportunity for extended 
voice training under competent teachers. However, when listening to 
a speaker, one will often notice one's own brows contracting, the throat 
becoming parched, the muscles tightening, and other systems of nervous 
tension. Try to determine what characteristics of the speaker produce 
this nervous state. Acting upon the suggestions that will be received 
in this manner, much can be done by a simple determination to have 
a pleasing voice, and by constant, careful effort to attain it. 

2. GESTURE AND POSTURE. 

Let your gestures be few and simple. Avoid stamping the floor, or 
pounding the table. Stand quietly upon the platform; be self-possessed, 
but not over-confident. A restless shifting of weight from foot to foot, 
a nervous fumbling with watch chain or vest pocket, a steady swaying 
of the body, a constantly repeated gesture, all should be avoided. Make 
your audience feel at ease, because of your own easy bearing. Frequently 
boys in public speaking classes ask, "May I put my hands in my pocket? 
May I lean on the table," etc. An instructor replies, "You may do 
anything on the platform that a gentleman would do in the presence 
of ladies and gentlemen. In fact you may do anything which does not 
attract the attention of the audience from what you are saying, and 
to the manner in which you are saying it." In a word, stand firmly 

26 



on both feet, and let hands and body and face help you talk, just as 
they please; with the single provision that you do not make your hearers 
conscious of your gesticulation. A good speaker, who may have used 
fifty gestures during his address, at its close may feel sure that he did 
not gesture at all. 

3. SPEAKING NOT TALKING. 

Some one has said that the ideal orator is a man talking in a room 
to two or three friends. To a certain extent this is true. But speaking- 
is more than talking. A speaker rises to his task. He is, for the time 
being, a leader of men. He knows, or is supposed to know, more 
about his subject than do his hearers. He energizes his words, puts 
power into his delivery. Color and feeling creep into his voice. His 
own emotions find expression in his oratory, every nerve alert, and 
every faculty of mind and body ready for use. A good speaker judges 
the size of his audience, the acoustics of his room, and adapts himself 
to them. He never overreaches — has always a reserve power, giving 
the impression that he could, if necessary, be much more powerful. In 
short, throw yourself into your work, stamp your own personality upon 
your thoughts, be a man, the servant of an idea, are injunctions which 
the good speaker must never forget. 

And now in closing, we wish to urge two things upon all young 
debaters. First, never miss an opportunity to get upon your feet and 
try to talk. Do not fail to identify yourself with a debating organiza- 
tion. If you have none in your city, get together a half dozen fellows 
and form one. The best way to learn to speak is to speak — speak — 
speak. Second, form the habit of noticing how successful public speakers 
accomplish their results. Begin with your local preachers, lawyers, 
congressmen. Notice their voices, their gestures, their position, their 
feeling; all the elements of good delivery. And even more important, 
watch their analysis, evidence, and refutation, keeping in mind all 
the principles which have been hastily treated in this bulletin. 

OREGON HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING LEAGUE-REVIEW 
OF SECOND YEAR'S WORK. 

By E. E. DeCou, Secretary-Treasurer. 
At the annual meeting of the League at the State Teachers' Asso- 
ciation at Eugene, President E. T. Marlatte and Secretary-Treasurer 
E. E. DcCou were reelected, and the Executive Committee was left 
unchanged. Several important changes were made in the constitution. 
A new plan for selecting judges and for judging debates was adopted; 
an official score card was prepared for the judges and especial stress 
was laid upon extemporaneous rebuttal work in order to counteract 
a tendency toward set speeches and oratory. Reports from the League 
schools show a very general approval of the changes and a generally 
higher standard of debating. Another important change provided for 
the selection by the Executive Committee of district questions to be 
used in all but the first preliminary debates. Four questions of State 
educational policy were adopted as follows: For Central Oregon: 
(1) Resolved, That the consolidated system of public schools (with 
elective county school board with power to appoint county superintend- 
ent) should be adopted in Oregon in lieu of the present system of rural 
school districts. For Columbia River district: (2) Resolved, That 
the school funds should be apportioned on the basis of the number of 
teachers employed, rather than on that of the school census. For Eastern 
Oregon :- (3) Resolved, That the State of Oregon should provide by 
general taxation for a minimum term of six months in each school 
district of the State. For Southern Oregon: (4) Resolved, That free 

27 



text-books should be provided in the public schools below the high school 
grade. 

Undoubtedly the discussion of these questions has had a large educa- 
tional value, and one of them, the adoption of a minimum term of six 
months' school has become a law within the year. 

A healthy growth in the number of League schools necessitated 
the forming of a new Coos County district, which on account of the 
difficulties of transportation has confined its debates to the county. 

The district directors and champion teams were as follows: Eastern 
Oregon, Supt. J. A. Churchill, director; Pendleton, champion. Columbia 
River district, Supt. W. W. Wiley, director; Newberg, champion. Central 
Oregon, Prin. Geo. W. Hug, director; Junction City, champion. Southern 
Oregon, Supt. R. R. Turner, director; Grants Pass, champion. Coos 
County district, Supt. A. G. Raab, director; North Bend, champion. 

The detailed district results follow, the first named school in each 
case being the winner : Eastern Oregon — First preliminaries, Pendleton 
vs. La Grande, Baker City vs. Ontario, Union vs. Elgin, Sherman 
County vs. Crook County; second preliminaries, Pendleton vs. Sherman 
County, Baker City vs. Union; final debate, Pendleton vs. Baker City. 
Columbia River district — First preliminaries, Newberg vs. Yamhill, 
The Dalles vs. Woodburn, Gresfcam vs. Hood River, Astoria vs. Tillamook; 
second preliminaries, Newberg vs. Astoria, The Dalles vs. Gresham; 
final debate, Newberg vs. The Dalles. Central Oregon — Junction City 
vs. Cottage Grove, Salem vs. Lebanon, Eugene vs. Albany, Jefferson 
vs. Silverton; second preliminaries, Junction City vs. Eugene, Salem 
vs. Jefferson; final debate, Junction City vs. Salem. Southern Oregon — 
Grants Pass vs. Central Point. Coos County district — First preliminaries, 
North Bend vs. Marshfield, Coquille vs. Myrtle Point; final debate, 
North Bend vs. Coquille. 

The inter-district and final debates were on the question: "Resolved, 
That the United States should maintain a system of bounties and 
subsidies for the protection of the American merchant marine." The 
remarkable result in all these debates was that the negative won. In 
the inter-district contests Grants Pass won from Junction City and 
Pendleton from Newberg. 

The championship debate at Villard Hall, University of Oregon, 
June 4, was one in which both teams showed unusual ability and prep- 
aration, creating a highly favorable impression of the character of 
the work of the League. President E. T. Marlatte presided, and Presi- 
dent P. L. Campbell of the University presented the beautiful "Regents' 
Cup" to Grants Pass, who won in a close contest over Pendleton. 
Lebanon, having failed to hold the "Regents' Cup" won last year, 
was given a handsome "League Cup" as a permanent trophy. Follow- 
ing the debate, Secretary E. E. DeCou presided over a banquet given 
in honor of the visiting teams. 

The work of the year has shown a decided advance in many ways. 
The principals have grown familiar with the work and have striven to 
promote better debating in the League and in their schools. They have 
in general, used the suggestions in the Bulletin to good advantage. Five- 
sixths of the principals desire the use of the triangular system of 
debating within the district as now used by the Universities of Oregon, 
Washington, and Idaho, on the ground that it minimizes the difficulties 
due to judges and doubles the number of students participating in 
debate, at the same time increasing the efficiency of the work by develop- 
ing an affirmative and a negative team on each question in each school. 

The Secretary believes that the League will increasingly become a 
strong developer of the best intellectual interests of the high schools, 
a means of creating a closer bond between the school and the community, 
and a center of discussion of public questions which cannot fail to 
promote the best type of citizenship. 

28 



CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS 

OF THE 

Oregon High School Debating League. 

(Adopted at the State Teachers' Association, Salem, July 2, 1907. Amended 

June 27, 1908.) 

ARTICLE I. 

NAME. 

This organization shall be known as the Oregon High School Debating 
League. 

ARTICLE II. 

OBJECT. 

The object of this League is improvement in debate among the 
students in the high schools of the State of Oregon. 

ARTICLE III. 

MEMBERSHIP. 

Section 1. Any public high school in Oregon which maintains a 
debating society throughout the year may become a member of this 
League upon application to the Executive Committee of the League and 
shall retain such membership so long as it conforms to the constitution 
and by-laws. 

Section 2. All schools seeking admission for any particular year 
must join by October 15th of that year. 

Section 3. The annual dues of three dollars shall be paid to the 
Treasurer by October 15th. Failure to pay dues shall cancel membership. 

ARTICLE IV. 

OFFICERS, COMMITTEES, DUTIES. 

Section 1. The officers of the League shall be a President and a 
Secretary-Treasurer. They shall be elected at the annual meeting. 

Section 2. The executive committee of the League shall consist of 
the President and the Secretary, who shall act with the State Superin- 
tendent of Public Instruction, the President of the University of Oregon 
and the Secretary of the Oregon Library Commission. This committee 
shall have power to increase its membership by two additional members, 
one of whom shall be a county superintendent. 

Section 3. (a) It shall be the duty of the President to preside at 
the annual meeting, and at the final contest, and, when necessary, to 
call meetings of the executive committee. 

(6) It shall be the duty of the Secretary-Treasurer to keep minutes 
of the annual meeting, and of meetings of the executive committee, to 
disburse funds upon order of the Executive Committee, to collect annual 
dues and perform other duties pertaining to the office. 

(c) It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee: 

To pair the district champion teams, to choose sides and to make 
other arrangements for the inter-district contests, on the basis of con- 
venience and least expense. The pairing and choice of sides for the inter- 
district and final debates shall be made before the conclusion of the 
district debates, and the Secretary shall submit the schedule to the 
Executive Committee before it becomes final. 

To co-operate with the two directors, whose districts shall be repre- 
sented in the final contest, in making arrangements for that contest. 

29 



To select the question for debate for the inter-district and final 
contests; also those for the districts in all but the first preliminaries. 
In no case, however, shall the State and inter-district question be used 
as an intra-district question. 

To prepare and have printed each year, before December 1st, a year 
book containing the latest revision of the constitution and by-laws, the 
list of names and addresses of the officers, the list of names of the high 
schools belonging to the League, statement of question for inter-district 
and final contests with bibliography, and such other matter as, in their 
judgment, may be helpful to the members of the League. 

Section 4. The Executive Committee shall appoint for each district 
one director who shall be the principal (or other representative) of 
one of the league high schools in that district. 

It shall be the duty of the director: 

To preside at the call meetings of the principals (or other repre- 
sentatives) of the league high schools in his district. 

To co-operate with the principals (or other representatives) of the 
league high schools in his district, in pairing the schools, and in making 
other arrangements for the several series of district contests on the 
basis of convenience and expense. 

To furnish the Executive Committee all necessary information with 
regard to all the workings of the League within his district. 

ARTICLE V. 

MEETINGS, ELECTIONS. 

Section 1. The directors in the several districts shall, at any time 
they deem it necessary, call meetings of the principals (or other repre- 
sentatives) of the league high schools in their respective districts. 

Section 2. The annual meeting shall be held at the time of the State 
Teachers' Association. At this meeting the officers shall be elected, 
each for a period of one year. Each league high school shall be entitled 
to only one vote. 

ARTICLE VI. 

DEBATING DISTRICTS. 

The State shall be divided into debating districts by the Executive 
Board of the League. 

ARTICLE VII. 

CONTESTS. 

Section 1. District Contests. The district contests, held by teams 
representing the several high schools within each district, shall occur 
between the first of November and the first of February. The team 
winning in the last series of these contests shall be the district champion 
team. The triangular system of debate is urged wherever conditions 
permit, leaving the method of grouping by twos in other cases. 

Section 2. Inter-District Contests. The inter-district contests, held 
by the several district champion teams, shall occur between the first 
of March and the first of May. The two teams winning in these contests 
shall be the two inter-district champion teams. 

Section 3. Final Contest. The final contest, held by the two inter- 
district champion teams, shall be held at the University of Oregon at 
a time to be fixed bv the Executive Committee. 



30 



ARTICLE VIII. 



DEBATERS. 



Section 1. The debaters shall be undergraduate students of the 
schools which they represent, and shall have passing grades to date in 
at least three subjects that they are taking at the time of the contest. 

Section 2. The team that shall represent any league high school 
shall be selected by a series of try-outs. 

Section 3. At all contests the debaters shall be separated from 
the audience and shall receive no coaching while the debate is in progress. 

Section 4. At all contests the time and order of the speeches shall 
be as follows: 

First speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (introduction and direct 
argument) . 

First speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refutation). 

Second speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and 
refutation). 

Second speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refutation). 

Third speaker, affirmative, 12 minutes (direct argument and 
(refutation). 

Third speaker, negative, 12 minutes (direct argument and refutation). 

Closer, negative, 6 minutes (rebuttal and summary) . 

Closer, affirmative, 6 minutes (rebuttal and summary). 

No new argument allowed in either of the last two speeches. 

ARTICLE IX. 

Section 1. At each contest there shall be three judges selected on 
the basis of capability and impartiality; and, so far as possible, they 
shall be non-local. 

Section 2. The judges for inter-district debates shall be appointed 
by the Executive Committee, but in no case shall a member of said 
committee take part in the selection of judges in a case where he is 
personally interested. For the district contests, the principals of the 
two schools represented shall select the judges as follows : The principal 
of the visiting school shall submit a list of nine judges to the home 
school, from which to select three. If less than this number are satis- 
factory, the principal of the home school shall present a like list for 
selection, and so on until three mutually satisfactory judges are selected. 
The consideration of judges shall be taken up a month or more before 
the contest, and if possible, the final selection shall be made not less 
than a week before the debate. 

Section 3. During the debate the judges shall sit apart from one 
another. They shall take into consideration argument, rebuttal, and 
effectiveness, and shall base their decision on the merits of the debate 
and not on that of the question. Each judge at the conclusion of the 
contest, without consultation with any other judge, shall write on a 
card the word "affirmative" or "negative," seal it in an envelope, and 
deliver it to the presiding officer, who shall open the envelopes in the 
sight of the two leaders, and then announce to the audience the decision. 

The following score card is to be handed each judge for his private 
use: 



-31 



[FACE] 

SCORE CARD FOR OREGON STATE DEBATING LEAGUE. 



Affirmative 


Argument 


Rebuttal 


Effectiveness 


Total 


First Speaker 










Second Speaker 










Third Speaker 










Total 




















Negative 


Argument 


Rebuttal 


Effectiveness 


Total 


First Speaker 




















Third Speaker 










Total 



















N. B. — Not more than 100 points and not less than 60 points shall be given 
for each of the three divisions : Argument, Rebuttal, and Effectiveness. 



[BACK] 

INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES. 

I. The judges shall sit apart from one another, and shall at the conclusion 
of the debate, without consultation, write on a separate card the word 
"affirmative" or "negative," seal in envelope and hand to the presiding 
officer. 
II. Each debater shall be marked under the three heads as indicated at the 
bottom of the face of score card. The leader of the affirmative shall 
give the final rebuttal speech, at which time he will be given credit 
for rebuttal. 

III. Definition of terms : 

Argument means the substance and value of the proof offered and its 
skillful use in the discussion. 

Rebuttal means impromptu argument used to refute the direct argu- 
ment of the opposing side. 

Effectiveness means the combination of good English with pleasing 
delivery. 

IV. Decision should be based on the merits of the debate and not on the 

merits of the question. 



ARTICLE X. 



EXPENSES. 



Section 1. At the district and inter-district contests, the entertaining 
high schools shall pay the expenses of the judges, and the hotel bills 
and railway mileage of the visiting teams (the three debaters and one 
member of the high school faculty). If, however, the two teams taking 
part in the contest, should find it more convenient or less expensive to 
meet at some half-way point, the two schools which are represented by 
these teams shall share equally the expense, or make some special arrange- 
ments for defraying the expenses for that particular debate. 

Section 2. At the final contest the University shall pay the expenses 
of the judges and the hotel bills and traveling expenses of the two teams. 



32 



ARTICLE XI. 

AMENDMENTS. 

This constitution and by-laws may be amended at any annual meet- 
ing by a majority of the league high schools present. But no school 
shall have more than one vote. Amendments may also be made at any 
time by majority vote of the Executive Committee, subject to ratification 
at the next annual meeting. 



BY-LAWS. 

1. After arrangements for any series of debates are concluded, 
the statement of the question for debate may be changed with the 
consent of the team concerned. But the team desiring the change must 
re-state the question and secure the consent of the other teams. 

2. It shall be considered dishonorable for one school to visit the 
debates of another school when these two schools are likely to meet 
on the same question. 

3. It shall be considered dishonorable for any debater, in any manner, 
to plagiarize his speech. 

4. The questions for the first preliminary debates shall be selected 
by the principals of the contesting schools; but they shall be different 
from the question used in the remaining debate in that district and 
that used in the inter-district contests. 

5. Counties with less than seventy-five high school students registered 
in all the schools in the county may enter the League with a team selected 
by a series of try-outs from all the high schools of the county. 

6. The "Regents' Cup" shall become the permanent property of the 
school winning it twice. A "League Cup" shall be given to the school 
failing to hold the "Regents' Cup" a second year, said "League Cup" 
to be held permanently by the school. 



m library of the 

NOV 1 - 1929 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



33